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

4-13-04

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

  • 4-13-04

    The annual Bizarro Awards

    By Chad Ford
    Tuesday, April 13

    Every year NBA writers get together and honor the best in the league. For the most part, the process is pretty transparent. We honor pet projects. Praise those who exceeded our expectations or pat the folks on the back who made us look smart back in October.

    Every year, with few exceptions, we come to near-unanimous agreement on everything, which means, by now, I'd have to poke at you with a stick every few minutes to keep you awake.

    Instead of waxing poetically on each one. I'm just going to get it over with. Here's how my ballot would look for this year's postseason awards.

    MVP: Kevin Garnett, Timberwolves
    Runner-up: Peja Stojakovic, Kings
    Commentary: Best record in the conference? The Wolves. Best player in the conference? Garnett. This isn't rocket science.

    Rookie of the Year: Carmelo Anthony, Nuggets
    Runner-up: LeBron James, Cavs
    Commentary: James led on my ballot until the last week of the season. But as the Cavs petered out down the stretch, the young Anthony took the Nuggets on his back (much like he did Syracuse) and led them to the playoffs. He averaged 25 ppg on 44 percent shooting since the playoffs -- 26.5 ppg and 7.5 rpg in April. James' numbers were good (21.8 ppg on 43 percent shooting) but didn't have the same net effect as Carmelo's.

    Sixth man: Manu Ginobili, Spurs
    Runner-up: Antawn Jamison
    Commentary: Tough call. Both guys gave up starting gigs to help their team's second unit. The Spurs started rolling when Ginobili agreed to the move. The Mavs never really got rolling all year. That gives the edge to Manu.

    Most Improved: Andrei Kirilenko, Jazz
    Runner-up: Michael Redd, Bucks
    Commentary: The Jazz won 43 games this year -- many without Matt Harpring. If it wasn't for Kirilenko's development, the Jazz would've been the worst team in the league. With him, they almost made the playoffs. That should do it.

    Defensive Player of the Year: Ron Artest, Indiana
    Runner-up: Ben Wallace , Pistons
    Commentary: Another tough call. The two best teams in the East had the league's two-best defenders. Artest gets the edge because of his versatility. On any given night Rick Carlisle can ask Artest to shut down the opposing teams best player, regardless of position. Big Ben has to stay in the paint.

    Coach of the Year: Jerry Sloan, Jazz
    Runner-up: Hubie Brown, Grizzlies
    Commentary: The toughest call of all. Every year we in the media give this award to the coach whose team most exceeded our preseason expectations. It said here in October that the Jazz would only win 20 games. They more than doubled that win total -- largely without their best player. It also said here that the Grizzlies would be the seventh seed in the West. They not only made the playoffs, but are eyeing a fifth seed. My heart says Sloan. My head says Hubie. Both deserve it, but I'm going with my heart.

    Executive of the Year: Jerry West, Grizzlies
    Runner-up: Joe Dumars, Pistons
    Commentary: West made most of his big moves last year, but that doesn't matter. His vision (which many questioned) has been remarkable. From hiring Hubie to surrounding him with players who will work hard and fit in a system, he's done a masterful job of rebuilding the worst team in the league in just two years. He barely edges out last year's winner, Dumars, who pulled off the trade of the year when he nabbed Rasheed Wallace for a bunch of expiring contracts. The Bucks' Larry Harris and the Nuggets' Kiki Vandeweghe also deserve mention.

    With that out of the way . . . let's get on to more important things. It's time for Insider's third annual Bizzaro Awards, where we recognize the polar opposites of the gentleman we've listed above.

    LVP
    Chris Webber, Kings: The Kings were 44-15 without CWebb. 11-11 since he returned. Sure, Webber's struggled to come back from his injury. His explosiveness isn't there, nor is his lateral quickness. CWebb may still be a great player, but no one in the league has done more damage to his team in such a short time frame.

    Runner-up: Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Blazers: Let's see. Abdur-Rahim averages 20.1 ppg and 36.8 mpg in Atlanta and his team is one of the worst in the league. He's traded to Portland, has his minutes dropped to 22.7 per game, scores just 9.7 ppg and the Blazers catch fire. For years we've been blaming Abdur-Rahim's team. But his disposability on the Blazers has been shocking. Even Darius Miles is doing well there.

    Rookie Flop of the Year

    Darko Milicic, Pistons: It's way too early to write off Darko or any other rookie for that matter. He's 18, on one of the two best teams in the East and mired behind two all-star-caliber forwards -- Ben and Rasheed Wallace. But we'd be lying if we said he wasn't the biggest disappointment. Most felt that Darko would, by mid-season, have some impact on the Pistons. Blame it on Larry Brown, the Pistons' depth or the kid's inability to pick up the NBA game fast enough, but Darko was the only pick in the top eight not to produce something this year. Still . . . and I know you're sick of hearing it . . . the kid is going to be really good. Patience.

    Runner-up: Marcus Banks, Celtics: A last-minute surge in draft hysteria lifted Banks (widely regarded as a second-round pick until the last month of the draft) all the way to the lottery. Danny Ainge loved him. So far he's been a big disappointment. Unlike Darko, Banks played four years of college ball and was supposed to have the NBA body and athleticism to make a difference right now. Instead, he's averaged almost as many turnovers (1.6) as assists (2.1) and hasn't shown the smarts to be able to run a team. Will he eventually turn into a sixth man spark plug?

    Least improved
    Tyson Chandler, Bulls: A bad back has been a major part of the problem, but who wants to talk about a bad back on a 21-year-old? His scoring, shooting percentage and blocked shots are all down from last year. His 3.7 ppg on 36 percent shooting in March was pretty pitiful for a 7-footer. The fact that he can rebound is the only thing keeping him around right now.

    Runner-up: Eddy Curry, Bulls: Surprise, surprise, two Bulls on the same list. Curry was our preseason pick for most improved. However, he showed up to camp out of shape and has never given the consistent defensive effort to stay in the game. He's still a talented low-post scorer, but if he gives up more points than he scores . . . what's the point?

    12th man
    Nick Van Exel, Warriors: Talk about your buyer's remorse. Remember when Chris Mullin and company were claiming that Van Exel was going to be the guy who led them to the playoffs. After being the spark plug that almost led the Mavs to the Finals, Van Exel rolled over this year. Between knee injuries (injuries the Warriors knew about before they traded for him) and a bad attitude on a bad team, Van Exel turned in the worst effort of his career and ended up starting only 29 games for Golden State.

    Runner-up: Wally Szczerbiak, Timberwolves: Two years ago he was an all-star. This year injuries and a loaded Wolves roster pushed him out of the starting lineup and toward the end of the bench. His 9.9 ppg, 3.1 rpg and 44 percent shooting from the field are all career lows.

    The Tim Floyd Award (Worst Coach of the Year)

    Lenny Wilkens, Knicks: It's tough to call the league's winningest coach the worst coach of the year, but remember this -- Wilkens also has more losses than anyone in history. He was behind the Raptors' demise in Toronto, and has done little to get the Knicks going in New York. You think Isiah Thomas installed Wilkens so that, when he took the job from Lenny, everyone would agree that Zeke was an upgrade?

    Runner-up: Tim Floyd, Hornets: Floyd is a nice man and a decent coach. His team has been saddled with injuries all season. Still, with so much talent, the team's shocking lack of unity and lackluster play down the stretch have to be blamed on someone. The players are pointing in Floyd's direction. Given the track record, is that so outrageous?

    Enron Executive of the Year
    Robert Rowell, Warriors: I could've put Garry St. Jean's name here, but we've established that he's no longer making all the decisions in Golden State. I could've put Chris Mullin's, but let's not pick on him until he actually takes the job. Instead, let's head to the source, Rowell, Chris Cohan's right hand man.

    After the most promising Warriors season in a decade, Rowell let Gilbert Arenas slip away, traded Antawn Jamison and Jiri Welsch for Nick Van Exel and is on the verge of firing one of the better coaches in the NBA, Eric Musselman. While a few of their off-season acquisitions (Cliff Robinson, Calbert Chaney, Brian Cardinal) worked out very well, it appears that Rowell will fire Musselman for actually playing them over their young guys.

    This team lacks front-office focus, and dumping Musselman and possibly losing Erick Dampier and Adonal Foyle this summer won't help things. After a one year mirage, the Warriors appear to be heading in the wrong direction again. While they have the young assets to turn the franchise around, given the track record, forgive us if we're not optimistic.

    Runner-up: John Gabriel, Magic: I hate to pick on a guy who's already lost his job, but the Magic went from a playoff team to the worst team in the league despite adding one of the more coveted free agents (Juwan Howard) last summer. They dumped one of the better coaches in the business, Doc Rivers, and seemed to have alienated Tracy McGrady to the point that he's sure to bolt next summer. How bad did things get in Orlando? They had to replace Gabriel with a hockey guy. I'm not blaming Gabriel totally for the problem. We all know that Grant Hill's injury is the biggest problem they face. But still, Gabe's inability to cope with Hill's absence the past few years has finally caught up with the team.

    Playoff-tology

    The Nuggets' surprising win over the Kings on Monday locked them into the eight seed in the Western Conference. Combine that with the Rockets' win on Monday and we have now have a total of seven seeds locked in.

    The Pacers will be the first seed in the East.

    The Nets will be the second seed in the East.

    The Pistons will be the third seed in the East.

    The Celtics will be the eight seed in the East.

    The Rockets will be the seven seed in the West.

    The Nuggets will be the eight seed in the West.

    What will happen the rest of the way? Here's our latest breakdown . . .

    Memphis plays at Dallas tonight. If the Grizzlies win, they'll lock in the fifth seed and the Mavs slip to sixth in the West. If the Mavs win, they lock down the fifth seed and the Grizz move to the sixth seed. Either way, those two seeds will be decided tonight.

    Everything else is going to come down to Wednesday night's games.

    If Minnesota beats the Grizzlies in Memphis (remember, the Grizz will have nothing to play for) they lock down the No. 1 seed in the West. The Wolves will also grab the No. 1 seed in the West if the Spurs lose at home versus the Nuggets (who also have little to play for at this point).

    If the Spurs beat the Nuggets and the Wolves lose to the Grizzlies, the Spurs get the No. 1 seed and the Wolves will fall to the third seed. If the Kings and Lakers win all of their remaining games and the Spurs lose to the Nuggets, the Kings would have the second seed, the Lakers would have the third seed and the Spurs would fall to the fourth seed.

    The Kings can win the Pacific division and lock up the second seed with a win at Golden State on Wednesday. If the Kings lose and the Lakers defeat both the Warriors and the Blazers on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Lakers will grab the second seed and the Kings would fall to fourth. If the Lakers lose either game, they will be the fourth seed.

    In the East, the Bucks and Heat are tied for fourth place. If the Bucks defeat the Raptors at home on Wednesday, they'll secure the fourth seed in the West. If that happens, the Heat will have the fifth seed, win or lose, and the Hornets will end up with the sixth seed if they win or the seventh seed if they lose and the Knicks win on Wednesday.

    If the Bucks lose, things get much more interesting. If the Bucks lose and the Heat lose at home to the Nets and the Hornets lose in Washington, nothing changes.

    If the Bucks lose, and the Heat and Hornets both win . . . the Heat will be the fourth seed, the Hornets will be the fifth seed and the Bucks will fall all the way to sixth.

    If only the Heat win on Wednesday, the Heat will be the fourth seed, the Bucks will be the fifth seed and the Hornets are still stuck as the sixth seed.

    If only the Hornets win on Wednesday, the three teams will be locked into a virtual tie. Using the NBA's three-team tie-breaker (best head-to-head winning percentage among all teams tied) the Heat would be the fourth seed, the Hornets would be the fifth seed and the Bucks would fall to sixth.

    The Knicks can move up to the sixth seed if they defeat the Cavs at home on Wednesday and the Hornets lose to the Wizards.

    Around the League

    Bzdelik's hide saved in Denver? All of the talk about head coach Jeff Bzdelik being fired at the end of the season came to a halt on Monday night when the Nuggets clinched a berth in the playoffs and star forward Carmelo Anthony came out publicly in support of Bzdelik.

    "He got us 43 wins," Anthony said of Bzdelik. "They had 17 wins last year. I don't know how the front office thinks, I can only say what I think. He got us 43 wins. We did it also, but he was important. He was controlling us from the sidelines. We shall see what happens.

    "I felt the same way at the beginning of the season as I feel right now. Nothing has changed. We'd be a more experienced team next season with one year of experience in the playoffs. He'll have the experience from this year."

    Bzdelik has a $1.5 million option for next season and a $500,000 buyout. Speculation had been running rampant that Bzdelik would be fired at season's end. Though Bzdelik had done a great job coaching the team, the front office was concerned that Bzdelik was abandoning the development stage of the team in lieu of a playoff berth. Two top young building blocks -- Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Rodney White -- were given limited playing time this season despite a feeling in the front office that the development of young players was a higher priority than the playoffs this season.

    That, however, may all be moot after the Nuggets' surprising victory on Monday.

    "It was very satisfying to all of us," Bzdelik told the Denver Post. "It is easy to doubt. It is easy to criticize. But it takes courage and perseverance to not let people challenge your confidence."

    O'Neill out in Toronto? The Toronto Star is reporting that head coach Kevin O'Neill will be bought out of the last year of his contract as soon as the season ends.

    According to the report, many of the GM candidates that the Raptors have talked to have indicated that they feel the job is more attractive if O'Neill is gone.

    With lottery coaches like Eric Musselman, Terry Stotts, John Carroll, Chris Ford and Nate McMillan also on the hot seat, look for the coaching massacre of 2003-04 to continue well into the summer.

    Ariza in the draft: UCLA freshman forward Trevor Ariza will declare for the NBA draft, according to several published accounts. Ariza had originally said that he would return to UCLA for his sophomore season.

    Ariza is considered a very good prospect by NBA scouts, but all of them had felt that he should return to school at least one more season. Ariza averaged 11.6 ppg and 6.5 rpg on 42 percent shooting. Right now he'd be considered a late-first-round or bubble second-round pick.
Working...
X