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

Trading Jackson and Tinsley

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

  • Trading Jackson and Tinsley

    Many of the experts around here already know this, but I just realized how hard it will be to trade Jackson and Tinsley. Given salaries and Tinsley's Base Year Compensation status, there are very limited opportunities to trade either player.

    There is no player on ANY of the following teams that match up with either Tinsley or Jackson one-for-one on the realgm trade checker:

    Boston
    Atlanta
    Chicago
    Denver
    LA Lakers
    New Orleans
    Philadelphia
    Utah

    According to the trade checker, there are 40 players in the whole NBA who could be traded under the rules of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Jackson, and even fewer for Tinsley.

    Of course, you only need to trade a player once, so 40 options may be plenty. But when you strike off the "old-and-busted" players that we wouldn't take in trade, and the "new hotness" players that we couldn't get, the list becomes very short indeed.

    I have three observations.

    1. Several of the names that stay on the list of possible trades have been tossed around on this board. (Earl Watson, Stromile Swift, Corey Magette, Morris Peterson, among others). Props to the Pacers Digest participants, who know what they are talking about!

    2. The probability of the Pacers doing two-for-one trades or multi-player trades has to be pretty high. If TPTB expect to clear away the problems AND get talent in return, they're going to have to give to get. This means that the likelihood of Foster/Johnson/Jasikavicius/Harrison/Croshere getting caught up in a trade is pretty high, if Jackson and/or Tinsley go.

    3. Maybe we need to consider "Getting under the cap" as part of the long-term strategy for righting the ship. As long as the Pacers are over that cap, the possibilities for improving the team are constrained. Walsh likes to field a good, playoff-calibur team every year, but it is costing too much.



    Plus it bugs the heck outta me that my hometown team is one of the most overpaid, underachieving, fattest clubs in the league. I want the Knicks to be overpaid, and I want to hate them for it.


    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

    Originally posted by Putnam

    3. Maybe we need to consider "Getting under the cap" as part of the long-term strategy for righting the ship. As long as the Pacers are over that cap, the possibilities for improving the team are constrained. Walsh likes to field a good, playoff-calibur team every year, but it is costing too much.

    BINGO!!!!!

    We need to come to the realization that we are not going to improve through trades. Right now, we have three total "assets" that are going to get any interest from GMs throughout the league: JO, Danny and Austin's expiring contract. Harrison and AJ could be seen as intriguing to a few other teams, but aren't anything anyone's getting too excited about.

    I imagine we're not trading Granger. And, while it's not out of the question to trade JO, I really don't think we're getting anything back from him that will make us better next year.

    So we've either got to hope that we keep getting great players with the 17th pick in the draft, or we need to get under the cap and sign somebody with real NBA talent.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

      Originally posted by JayRedd
      BINGO!!!!!

      We need to come to the realization that we are not going to improve through trades. Right now, we have three total "assets" that are going to get any interest from GMs throughout the league: JO, Danny and Austin's expiring contract. Harrison and AJ could be seen as intriguing to a few other teams, but aren't anything anyone's getting too excited about.

      I imagine we're not trading Granger. And, while it's not out of the question to trade JO, I really don't think we're getting anything back from him that will make us better next year.

      So we've either got to hope that we keep getting great players with the 17th pick in the draft, or we need to get under the cap and sign somebody with real NBA talent.
      Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them. We're not like Phoenix a few years ago or Orlando last year. We don't really have a young team close to the cap.

      Then, if we do get under the cap, we need to be VERY far below the cap to add a player of the caliber you are looking far. Consider that FA that leave their old teams almost always get overpaid. Consider also that most quality FAs never leave their old teams via free agency. There have been few exceptions to that rule such as Chauncey to Detroit and Nash to Phoenix. Simply looking at Phoenix, however, it was very hard for them to get Nash over and it was only thanks to Cuban not wanting to commit to him. And no one knew that Chauncey was this good when he was in Minnesota.

      To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

        Tinsley won't be BYC once the season's over. So that's not an issue.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

          Originally posted by Anthem
          Tinsley won't be BYC once the season's over. So that's not an issue.

          Thanks for the correction.

          But with a salary of $5.85 million, and a total of $33.6 million remaining on his contract going out to 2011, Tinsley nevertheless is hard to fit into a trade -- harder than Jackson will be.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

            Originally posted by Putnam
            Thanks for the correction.

            But with a salary of $5.85 million, and a total of $33.6 million remaining on his contract going out to 2011, Tinsley nevertheless is hard to fit into a trade -- harder than Jackson will be.
            Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

            I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.
            This space for rent.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

              Originally posted by Anthem
              Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

              I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.
              We better not trade Jackson, I hope not Tinsley either.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry
                We better not trade Jackson, I hope not Tinsley either.
                Then you've been out in the sun too long.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                  I see 2 scenarios when it comes to moving either SJax and/or Tinsley because of their trade value:

                  1 ) Trade them for backup players that have a contract that is equal in total $$$ and # of years. Basically a "trade your garbage for my garbage" type deal.

                  or

                  2 ) If TPTB get an offer to take on SJax or Tinsley but require that players like JONeal, Foster, AJ or ( even ) Harrison be included. They could be moved....except that we lose a player that we may not want to part with.

                  I can hope and pray that we can get back an expiring contract, a young player in return...or even a draft pick of some sort.....but if I know that Bird wasn't happy with SJax on/off the court behavior and know that he's likely on the trading block....then its easy to assume that every GM knows the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if we can only get back cr@p for moving either of them.

                  My choice is to simply do a straight up swap for the best player that we can get in return for any of them....as long as they have a comprable salary/contract. I just want them off the team, I want to keep the roleplayers on our team ( like AJ or Foster ) that I like and would be wililng to take on equal salary/contract in order to accomplish that goal.

                  Can someone clarify for me.........does the salary for a player that go out for the 2006-2007 simply have to match the incoming salary for 2006-2007 season ( regardless of the length of the contract )?

                  For example, say that Tinsley is owed $5.71 mil for the 2006-2007 season but is owe a total of $35 mil over the remaining 5 years of his contract.

                  Does that mean as long as we have $5.71 mil in 2006-2007 contracts coming in ( regardless of how much they are owed over the length of those contracts ) that trade can occur?

                  or

                  Does that mean that ( no matter what ) we have to take in about $35 mil in total contracts in order for the trade to occur?


                  Its unclear to me whether a trade is based purely on the amount of salary for that upcoming season ( meaning $5.71 mil coming in and $5.71 mil going out ) or if its based on the total amount of the contracts that come in ( as in $35 mil coming in and $35 mil going out ).

                  Knowing this would help me figure out what are viable trade scenarios.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                    Originally posted by Anthem
                    Then you've been out in the sun too long.
                    Tinsley is worth the risk because we couldn't get **** for him. When he's healthy, he can play and is by far the best PG on the team. I know that's a big IF if he is healthy but I say hold on to him.

                    Jackson can play. You guys complain because he gets to emotional, so what he cares about the game and wants to win. He was injured like what once this season? In the words of Kellen Winslow, "he's a f**kin soldier."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                      Originally posted by rexnom
                      Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them.
                      Yeah, that is what it will take.

                      "trading established players" = Jackson and Tinsley
                      "waiting out the rest and not resigning them" = Bender, Pollard, Croshere

                      Depending on what happens with Foster and Stojakovic, the Pacers could be under the cap as soon as 2008. The process doesn't have to ruin the seasons along the way, since there are players at every position who out-perform our players for less money.

                      Originally posted by rexnom
                      To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.
                      I didn't mean to imply that all the rebuilding would be done through trading,and certainly not through signing free agents. I agree it's better to draft and develop the core of the team.

                      I don't expect the Pacers to develop through signing pricey free agents. I'd expect 8+ positions on the roster to always be drafted players. But if they need a piece (Mark Jackson, Derrick McKey, Chris Mullen, etc.) I want them to be able to get him without hindrance from the CBA. That just seems like smart management.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                        Originally posted by Anthem
                        Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

                        I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.
                        I'm gonna throw out a possible dark horse for a candidate for "trading partner" for Tinsley......the Kings.

                        They need a backup PG, they have some redundancy in their frontcourt and the Maloofs have been known to take risks on some players.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                          Yeah trading tinsley is a joke. We can't get **** for him, I don't understand how people can't see that. I actually don't want to trade either of these guys, I just want a new coach.

                          A coach who will discipline jackson and not let tinsleys injuries mess with the rotations so much. In other words, don't let Tinsley start unless he goes a LONG time without injuries.

                          A new coach is all this team really needs. George Karl could turn this team around.
                          *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                            Originally posted by rexnom
                            Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them. We're not like Phoenix a few years ago or Orlando last year. We don't really have a young team close to the cap.

                            Then, if we do get under the cap, we need to be VERY far below the cap to add a player of the caliber you are looking far. Consider that FA that leave their old teams almost always get overpaid. Consider also that most quality FAs never leave their old teams via free agency. There have been few exceptions to that rule such as Chauncey to Detroit and Nash to Phoenix. Simply looking at Phoenix, however, it was very hard for them to get Nash over and it was only thanks to Cuban not wanting to commit to him. And no one knew that Chauncey was this good when he was in Minnesota.

                            To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.
                            I'm starting to think the only way to rebuild is to dump Jermaine for a young player or 2 and some expiring contracts. It kills us talent wise but I would probably do:

                            Indiana Trade Breakdown
                            Outgoing
                            Jermaine O'Neal
                            Stephen Jackson
                            Jamaal Tinsley

                            Incoming
                            Jalen Rose (expiring)
                            Jamal Crawford
                            Channing Frye
                            David Lee
                            #20 Pick
                            #29 Pick

                            That gives us only about $25,000,000 million in committed salaries for the 2007 / 08 season (not counting three late draft choices or resigning Peja / Freddie)

                            AJ / Sarunas
                            Crawford / Rose
                            Granger / Rose
                            Fry / Croshere / Lee
                            Foster / Harrison
                            3 late draft picks + possible S & T of Peja and Freddie

                            Thats ugly, but we would clear our past sins, have some young talent, caproom, and flexibility (with Croshere + Rose expiring contracts).

                            Even though that team would suck, I'd bet the fans would like it more.

                            I can't see Isaih passing on that. Not that I think it would be a good move for New York, but I can't see IT passing up the chance to acquire JO.

                            Probably wrong place for this, but your post made me curious.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Trading Jackson and Tinsley

                              Free agency is a rough racket.

                              Remember when Chicago dumped all of it's players to get under the cap? What big name free agent signed there? None.

                              Same with Denver, Atlanta & Toronto.

                              The draft is also a dicey proposition as that you never know what you have until about mid-way through the first season & even then you don't always know. Also unless you are dealing with a star player it usually takes 2-3 years for a player to develop into a real contributer so if you take say 3 drafts it might be 6 years for those three players to be gelled as a unit to play. The league changes to often for that.

                              Trades also are a crapshoot because sometimes things that look good on paper just don't work out chemistry wise for your team, look no further than Al for Jax to answer that one.

                              In all honesty there is no ONE way to do it, you have to be pro-active in all three levels to ever have a chance.

                              You have to look to sign solid free agents, knowing up front that you are not going to sign an established star player because they just don't move very often & when they do Indiana is not the place they go. Generally you are going to either get a young raw player, like Washington did with Arenas, & hope they devlop or you can build a solid bench with free agency.

                              You always have to be on the lookout for your draft pick. Get the best player you can at the position you are at. However one of the real dangers of being mediocre is that you fall into the middle of the first round. You can get good players there, but you are not going to get immediate impact players there who change your franchise. Even Granger, as much as I love him, was not an immediate impact player. He is still developing & in about another year or two he could be a star but it still is going to take time.

                              For the Pacers, IMO, the best way to improve our team is by trade. Not just for what we can bring in but in all honesty for what we can get rid of as well.

                              No you won't be able to trade Stephen Jackson by himself for anything really good. But combine Jackson with Jeff Foster & you could probably get a good player or a couple of good players. Jamaal Tinsley by himself is worthless, but Jamaal with Austin Croshere's ending contract could net you a good player. To move some of our junk we are going to have to package up a player or two we don't want to get rid of but that's just the way it is. Saras, Cro, Foster, Harrison or Johnson could all be packaged with one of the malcontents to get a good player in return.

                              Now all it takes is for management to commit to this, which may or may not be the plan.


                              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X