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

QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

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

  • QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_061020.html

    I've been a long-time Pacers fan from Guyana so imagine my delight that the first player in the NBA to hail from Guyana, Rawle Marshall, ended up with the Pacers. I've seen him play for Dallas and he certainly has scoring skills. His preseason scoring has not surprised me but has his stock improved enough to crack the roster? (From Varunesh in Kingston, Jamaica)



    A. Marshall is one of two players that have really played themselves up the depth chart, and both are former Dallas players acquired in the Darrell Armstrong trade; the other is, of course, Josh Powell. Entering camp, even though he had impressed the staff in workouts, I figured Marshall didn't have much chance of making the roster because at 6-7, 190 pounds, he has virtually the same profile as another ex-Maverick, Marquis Daniels, and prized draft acquisition James White.


    While Daniels has played just four preseason minutes due to a hamstring strain and White has struggled with the adjustment to the NBA, Marshall has looked right at home. He leads the team in minutes (33 per game) and has averaged 10.0 points on 50 percent shooting. A respectable mid-range shooter with a nose for the basket, Marshall also has proven capable of getting to the line and converting, going 20-of-25. All of which is impressive enough, but it's important to remember this is a guy who's specialty is defense, and he hasn't disappointed there. He's just a very smooth, fluid player that looks like he belongs in the NBA.


    Powell has exploded in the last two games, racking up 32 points and 13 rebounds while recovering from the flu. A rugged power forward with deceptive athleticism, Powell is one of those guys willing to give up his body for the good of the team. There's a quiet perseverance about him, as well; he's kind of the strong, silent type. Heading into camp, I figured he had at least an even chance of making it if he played well because the Pacers had a need for another big body. Powell definitely has that, and his ability to hit the 15-foot jumper fits nicely, as well.

    Three important preseason games remain and it will be extremely important for Marshall and Powell to continue to perform well. To this point, though, they've done exactly what players in their circumstances must in training camp and the preseason. They've made themselves extremely difficult to cut. In order to find a way to keep both, the Pacers would have to get pretty creative with their roster decisions. It seems pretty clear, if they had their druthers, the Pacers would find some way to make sure both Marshall and Powell are around for opening night – and well beyond.

  • #2
    Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

    Originally posted by Bruno
    They've made themselves extremely difficult to cut. In order to find a way to keep both, the Pacers would have to get pretty creative with their roster decisions.

    It seems pretty clear, if they had their druthers, the Pacers would find some way to make sure both Marshall and Powell are around for opening night – and well beyond.
    Reads to me like Baston ,Greene or maybe even White could be out, or that the Pacers would try some type of 2 for 1, or even trade a player for cash or a 2nd rounder.

    Why Not Us ?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

      With all these guys proving themselves worthy, I see no way we don't pull off a 2-1 or a trade for a draft pick.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

        Originally posted by Isaac@Section216 View Post
        With all these guys proving themselves worthy, I see no way we don't pull off a 2-1 or a trade for a draft pick.
        You have to find a willing partner, I would think it's really really really hard to do a 2 for 1, especially this time of year.

        I try to think of it from the other teams standpoint, too. Do we want to take on more players/contracts when we haven't even played a game.

        It's easy to say, really hard to execute, I'm guessing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

          I'm sure we could do Saras for second rounder in a minute, as many people suggested.
          But, I think A) TPTB are holding out for him to improve, and B) Larry doesn't want to lose face.
          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

            Originally posted by bulldog View Post
            I'm sure we could do Saras for second rounder in a minute, as many people suggested.
            But, I think A) TPTB are holding out for him to improve, and B) Larry doesn't want to lose face.
            Be realistic. We can't afford getting rid of PGs at this point. I'm sorry. Maybe we should have drafted a PG, I dunno. But getting rid of one of our PGs when the rest of our roster has one injury-ridled PG, one 38 year-old PG, and one guy we just picked up off of waivers doesn't seem that intelligent to me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

              Yes a 2 for 1 trade is very hard to make. It's easier said than done.

              I hope we find a way to keep both these guys though, along with Greene.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                Be realistic. We can't afford getting rid of PGs at this point. I'm sorry. Maybe we should have drafted a PG, I dunno. But getting rid of one of our PGs when the rest of our roster has one injury-ridled PG, one 38 year-old PG, and one guy we just picked up off of waivers doesn't seem that intelligent to me.
                Just for argument's sake, say that Powell and Marshall were Kobe and Karl Malone at age 22, would you keep a 31 year old Derek Fisher just because you needed PG protection?

                No. You gotta keep the talent. Powell or Marshall APPEAR (ie, could be wrong on this) to be more talented than SarJas. That makes them worth more on the market than SarJas. So at the very least you keep them, let them show their stuff a little, and if 2 of the other THREE PGs go down you trade them for someone better than SarJas has proven to be so far.


                The trade I kicked around due to the 3pt need (not that I think they need it since I like less 3PAs) is D. Marshall. Edwards/SarJas would match and that takes SarJas to a team that wanted him before and still has been looking for PG help.

                D. Marshall doesn't fix a problem and frankly I wouldn't care if he only saw 10 mpg, it just keeps the Pacers in a position to keep Rawle, Greene and Powell.


                Of course my first choice is a Baston cut, but if they can make a decent 2 for 1 in which they give a little in the deal, take on some salary length they don't quite want, then I think that works too. Baston is certainly strong enough to be a #10-12 guy on a standard roster.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  Just for argument's sake, say that Powell and Marshall were Kobe and Karl Malone at age 22, would you keep a 31 year old Derek Fisher just because you needed PG protection?

                  No. You gotta keep the talent. Powell or Marshall APPEAR (ie, could be wrong on this) to be more talented than SarJas. That makes them worth more on the market than SarJas. So at the very least you keep them, let them show their stuff a little, and if 2 of the other THREE PGs go down you trade them for someone better than SarJas has proven to be so far.


                  The trade I kicked around due to the 3pt need (not that I think they need it since I like less 3PAs) is D. Marshall. Edwards/SarJas would match and that takes SarJas to a team that wanted him before and still has been looking for PG help.

                  D. Marshall doesn't fix a problem and frankly I wouldn't care if he only saw 10 mpg, it just keeps the Pacers in a position to keep Rawle, Greene and Powell.


                  Of course my first choice is a Baston cut, but if they can make a decent 2 for 1 in which they give a little in the deal, take on some salary length they don't quite want, then I think that works too. Baston is certainly strong enough to be a #10-12 guy on a standard roster.
                  But the talent gap between Marshall/Powell (Or Baston if you will) and Greene is not even close to the talent gap between Kobe and Fisher that you listed. Also, if we had a Kobe that could play PG down the stretch of games I wouldn't worry about this but here we're basically relying on a lot of players we don't want to rely on if something bad happens.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                    I with we could have seen more of Daniels at PG. Anyway, at this point I'd probably be fine with giving Sarunas a clean start somewhere else.

                    I don't think he'll be in a much better position with any team we traded him to, but I'd be happy to give him a chance somewhere else.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      But the talent gap between Marshall/Powell (Or Baston if you will) and Greene is not even close to the talent gap between Kobe and Fisher that you listed. Also, if we had a Kobe that could play PG down the stretch of games I wouldn't worry about this but here we're basically relying on a lot of players we don't want to rely on if something bad happens.
                      Just for argument's sake,
                      The point was that you keep the talent. Why keep less just because you paid more for it? That's just stupid.

                      Oh, because it's only a little bit of a difference. Tell you what, you give me 20 bucks and I'll hand you back 18. Practically the same amount, so what do you care?

                      It's still less, that's why you care. And my point wasn't to cut Greene so you might read again. I just said that you don't worry about trading a PG because of some lack of depth. I specifically mentioned trading SarJas, not Greene.

                      Cutting Greene, Marshall or Powell would be a stupid waste of talent. All 3 are good enough to play THIS YEAR and even before injuries set in. If you lose Tinsley and Armstrong and MUST have another PG to go with GREENE, you could trade Marshall for one better than SarJas is right now (IMO).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        The point was that you keep the talent. Why keep less just because you paid more for it? That's just stupid.

                        Oh, because it's only a little bit of a difference. Tell you what, you give me 20 bucks and I'll hand you back 18. Practically the same amount, so what do you care?

                        It's still less, that's why you care. And my point wasn't to cut Greene so you might read again. I just said that you don't worry about trading a PG because of some lack of depth. I specifically mentioned trading SarJas, not Greene.

                        Cutting Greene, Marshall or Powell would be a stupid waste of talent. All 3 are good enough to play THIS YEAR and even before injuries set in. If you lose Tinsley and Armstrong and MUST have another PG to go with GREENE, you could trade Marshall for one better than SarJas is right now (IMO).
                        Obviously I see your point but I just don't see who we're going pull off a trade here or who we're going to get. I want to keep Marshall and Powell as well but I can TPTB's logic in keeping Greene ahead of them AND sticking with Saras.

                        As for cutting Baston, I really don't see that happening. He just seems like too much of an actual signing to just be cut loose here. I hope I'm wrong though, I really do.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                          i mentioned in the trade forum that we should try and trade SarJar to PHX, they have an extra roster spot available AND i think if he is going to succeed in the NBA it will most likely be for Mike "Euroball" D'Antoni and his shoot-threes, high-octane offense... what defense? system

                          i think we could get a 2nd round pick, plus they have a fairly unproven guy backing up nash.


                          to the basic point.. i think its vital to keep marshall and powell. i hear good things about greene but we haven't seen it. but i'd be willing to keep him and try it out. i don't know how likely it is that bird will do trade SarJar but i don't think we should decide between marshall and powell. i think we need both.
                          This is the darkest timeline.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                            i mentioned in the trade forum that we should try and trade SarJar to PHX, they have an extra roster spot available AND i think if he is going to succeed in the NBA it will most likely be for Mike "Euroball" D'Antoni and his shoot-threes, high-octane offense... what defense? system
                            Sarunas and Foster for Kurt Thomas and a first-round pick?

                            Yeah, we give up more than we get back. But it would actually be like trading Sarunas and Foster for Thomas, Marshall, and a pick.

                            Plus Saras could get a fresh start somewhere else.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: QOD 8/20/06-Has Marshall Done Enough To Make Roster?

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Sarunas and Foster for Kurt Thomas and a first-round pick?

                              Yeah, we give up more than we get back. But it would actually be like trading Sarunas and Foster for Thomas, Marshall, and a pick.

                              Plus Saras could get a fresh start somewhere else.
                              This was the rumor last summer, though I was tossing James Jones in trying to make sense of it.

                              Right now this would be a homerun deal for the Pacers IMO. Marshall has been very impressive and IMO will make more of a contribution this season than SarJas will, perhaps more than Foster as well (harder to compare though).

                              This keeps a solid big here, and PHX effectively gets SarJas for free. Makes a lot of sense to me.


                              The only reason we are talking this way is because of the pre-season results. And honestly if this team wants to be up-tempo Rawle is the fastest guy on every break. I had NO interest in Rawle to start the preseason, so this is all just earned respect.

                              Greene also showed a strong 4th in game 1, which included 5 assists (a couple were pretty nifty even) to go with his dramatically stronger on the ball defense (compared to anything in Indy not named Ron in the last 5 years).

                              Powell seems likely to have a better year than Foster, so you want to keep him as well.



                              I understand that as a signing (esp for 1.8m) Baston seems more "legit", but the fact is that the team could have cut Rawle sooner and spent ZERO on him, so why didn't they? And Snap was a signing, though much cheaper. And Edwards is likely to be cut despite his $1m+ salary for this season.

                              They kept Rawle I assume because they wanted to find out. Well they did, they found out that he's a strong SG/SF type that attacks the basket AND gets out on the break very well.


                              All I know is that when Bird turned to me to say "dump Rawle" my response would be "wait, why are we doing this again, why don't we want to keep talent." Hopefully others in TPTB are thinking the same way.



                              I also started to mention the odd jump in White's PT. He got "let's take a look at him" numbers in the last game IMO, compared to what he has been getting. If you are resigned to the fact that Williams and White are staying and you have this big issue trying to decide who to keep from a different group, then why give the rookies the PT of guys you want to look at?

                              Is it possible that after seeing Rawle they might consider White expendable? I hope not because I think White and Williams are simply rookies and will tighten their games up. But then its not like Powell and Rawle aren't almost rookies too.


                              In the "3 years from now" view does anyone see Baston being better than White, Williams, Powell, Greene or Marshall? Does anyone see the team needing Baston to play big minutes this year, at least if they also keep Powell?

                              So why do they keep him again? You don't need him now and you won't use him in the future.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X