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

Connecting the Dots...

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

  • #16
    Re: Connecting the Dots...

    Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
    ....if last nights woeful performance on defense was what we can expect without Jermaine to protect the basket , it will be a long time before this team is good.
    I did not get to watch the entire game, so I am somewhat making a guess about this. How much of the team's performance could be attributed to guys realizing their season is done, being totally disappointed and mentally drained, and just not having their hearts in it?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Connecting the Dots...

      Okay...this took awhile...but I compiled a list of Players for Western Conference teams that have expiring contracts within the next two seasons. I'm not sure how the Player or Team options work...but I included the players below that does not have any salary beyond the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons.

      Western Conference team with Players with Expiring Contracts or Player/Team options earning at least $3 mil a year in the 2007-2008 season

      Kwame Brown C/PF - $9.07 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - LA Lakers
      Kurt Thomas C/PF - $8.09 mil ( player Option during the 2007-2008 season ) - Phoenix
      Ricky Davis SG - $6.81 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - Minnesota
      Brent Barry SG - $5.55 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - San Antonio
      Eduardo Najera PF/SF -$4.95 mil ( Player Option during 2007-2008 season ) - Denver
      Bruce Bowen SG - $4.12 mil ( Team Option during the 2007-2008 season ) - San Antonio
      Gordon Giricek SG - $4.00 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - Utah
      Sarunas Jasekevocius PG - $4.00 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - GSW
      Bob Sura SG - $3.84 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - Houston
      Robert Horry PF - $3.63 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - San Antonio
      Micheal Finley SG - $3.10 mil ( Player Option during 2007-2008 season ) - San Antonio
      Francisco Elson C - $3.00 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - San Antonio

      Western Conference team with Players with Expiring Contracts or Player/Team options earning at least $3 mil per season until the 2008-2009 season

      Kevin Garnett PF - $22.00 mil ( player option during 2007-2008 season ), $24 mil ( expires after 2008-2009 season ) - Minnesota
      Allen Iverson PG/SG - $20.10 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $21.937 mil ( expires after 2008-2009 season ) - Denver
      Shawn Marion SF - $16.44 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $17.180 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - Phoenix
      Baron Davis PG - $16.44 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $17.18 mil ( expires after 2008-2009 season ) - GSW
      Elton Brand PF - $15.34 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $16.44 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - LA CLippers
      Lamar Odom PF/SF - $13.52 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $14.559 mil ( expires after the 2008-2009 season ) - LA Lakers
      Mike Bibby PG - $13.50 mil ( Early Termination clause for 2007-2008 season ), $14.5 mil ( expires after 2007-2008 season ) - Sacramento
      Raef LaFrentz C - $11.81 mil ( player option during 2007-2008 season ), $12.72 mil ( expires after 2008-2009 season ) - Portland
      Rashard Lewis SF - $10.12 mil ( player option during 2007-2008 season ), $10.909 mil ( expires after 2008-2009 season ) - Seattle
      Corey Maggette SG - $7.84 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $8.4 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - LA CLippers
      Ron Artest SF - $7.80 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $8.45 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - Sacramento
      Juwan Howard PF - $6.88 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $7.375 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - Houston
      Chris Wilcox PF - $6.50 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $6.75 mil ( expires after the 2008-2009 season ) - Seattle
      Stromile Swift PF/C - $5.80 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $6.2 mil ( Player Option during 2008-2009 season ) - Memphis
      Bobby Jackson PG - $5.67 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $6.09 mil ( expires after the 2008-2009 season ) - Memphis
      Damon Stoudamire PG - $4.35 mil ( 2007-2008 season ), $4.65 mil ( expires after the 2008-2009 season ) - Memphis

      The above list only includes players that earn above 3 mil a year. I figure that there is no point to include one that is less then 3 mil a year since it won't make much of a difference and won't be much of a player worth acquiring. As you can tell, the list includes Artest....but note that this is just a list of players with Expiring contracts within the next two seasons.....I'm not suggesting that we acquire them in any trade involving JONeal.

      I am working on a list for Eastern Conference players....but figure this is a good place to start to figure out what teams that we will likely deal with to get an Expiring Cotnract player.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Connecting the Dots...

        I havn't read most of the post above this one but I'll post my thought anyway.

        If the Celtics land Oden then Jefferson might be available. Maybe O'Neal & Tinsley for Jefferson, one of their bad contracts, a young guy or two & maybe a pick?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Connecting the Dots...

          Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
          I havn't read most of the post above this one but I'll post my thought anyway.

          If the Celtics land Oden then Jefferson might be available. Maybe O'Neal & Tinsley for Jefferson, one of their bad contracts, a young guy or two & maybe a pick?
          We can only hope, but I don't think there's any way Jefferson is leaving Boston. If you subtract the first month of the season where he was injured, his numbers have been almost as good as JO's. Unless Ainge just wants to bring in a vet to appease Paul Pierce and save his job, he'd have to be stupid to trade Jefferson.

          Trading JO for Jefferson right now would be very much like trading Dale Davis for JO. In a couple of years, it will look quite lopsided.

          If we could wind up with Jefferson and a pick and a PG (They have three, I'll take any of them, though Telfair would be my 3rd choice)... man that would be great. Of course the condition may be that we take on Wally Sczerbiak, now that would be a scary proposition.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Connecting the Dots...

            Originally posted by Jose Slaughter View Post
            I havn't read most of the post above this one but I'll post my thought anyway.

            If the Celtics land Oden then Jefferson might be available. Maybe O'Neal & Tinsley for Jefferson, one of their bad contracts, a young guy or two & maybe a pick?
            If the Celtics land the number 1 pick I am of the opinion that they will take Durant and then move Pierce.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Connecting the Dots...

              Originally posted by PacerMan View Post
              All one had to do to judge Jermaines worth is witness the last week of the season.
              Try to be realistic about what he's really worth.
              Jermaine O'Neal's worth to this team is irrelevant to his worth for another team. There's no reason to take it personally and get sarcastic about it. The reality of the situation is......Who's the best upcoming PF/C that plays a simliar style to JO? Bosh? Would you trade Murphy ( a big contract), Granger & Williams ( a couple of young guys with upside) and a draft pick for Bosh? Is that what you think JO's worth a big contract, a couple of young guys who are still in rookie contract land and a pick.....never gonna happen.

              Look at some of the big name players and what they've commanded.

              AI got Andre Miller a 30+ year old point guard, Joe Smith a 31+ year old underachiever and two 1st round picks.

              Shaq got Odom, Grant, Butler and a single 1st rounder.

              Grant Hill got Ben Wallace( well before he was a household name) and Chucky Atkins

              JO isn't on that level.
              I'm in these bands
              The Humans
              Dr. Goldfoot
              The Bar Brawlers
              ME

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Connecting the Dots...

                Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                Or is Tinsley an acceptable point guard with a different coach and style of play?
                I was trying to find something regarding the players not wanting Rick as a head coach the first time around when I happened upon this article. Maybe relevant to Jamaal's situation, maybe not.........

                http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...24/ai_63940536

                More often than not, when you talk to a general manager about a player, he'll tell you what that guy can do. Talk to a coach, and heal tell you what that player cannot do. It is a critical distinction. A coach's personal insecurities, biases and idiosyncrasies come across with each player evaluation, and a player ultimately is only as good as his coach thinks he is.

                Two classic examples reside on the Pacers' roster.

                Mark Jackson was a rookie of the year and All-Star in New York, partly because Rick Pitino built him up as such and showed him how he could overcome his speed deficiency. Stu Jackson and John MacLeod followed Pitino, and Mark Jackson suddenly went in the tank when these coaches decided Rod Strickland and Mo Cheeks could do Jackson's job better.

                The Knicks fell apart in those two seasons. Then Pat Riley showed up and made Jackson a formidable weapon again, Larry Brown gave him even more responsibility with the Clippers and Indiana, and now Jackson deserves Hall of Fame consideration.

                A coach's faith did all that.

                Another example is Jalen Rose. When he came from Denver, Brown buried him and looked only at the mistakes he made with the ball. Bird arrived and saw a multi-dimensional player who could excel at three positions, and now Rose is one signature away from collecting $86 million over the next seven years.

                Moral of the story? A coach's attitude toward a player means everything, and coaches are often too emotional with regard to players. Their negativity rubs off, and the relationship is permanently damaged.
                PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Connecting the Dots...

                  Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                  If the Celtics land the number 1 pick I am of the opinion that they will take Durant and then move Pierce.
                  I think Ainge is one of the few GMs that would take Durant #1 as well! Though Oden would be deemed the next Bill Russell if the Celtics took him, I'm pretty sure the Celtics would take Durant and make whichever team at #2 very happy.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Connecting the Dots...

                    Al Jefferson's best month (March, 15 games):

                    19.7 pts, 11.2 rpg, 1.6 asts, 1.3 blks, 1.1 stls, 124-225 FGA, 55% shooting.

                    JO's best month (January, I know this is arguable. I chose it because he played the entire month and played a similar number of games to Jefferson in March, 13 games):

                    20.1 pts, 10.3 reb, 2.4 ast, 2.8 blks, 0.7 stls, 95-224 FGA, 42% FG

                    JO is a much better free throw shooter and gets to the line more often. JO is 28, Al Jefferson is 21.
                    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                    - Salman Rushdie

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Connecting the Dots...

                      Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
                      I was trying to find something regarding the players not wanting Rick as a head coach the first time around when I happened upon this article. Maybe relevant to Jamaal's situation, maybe not.........

                      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...24/ai_63940536

                      More often than not, when you talk to a general manager about a player, he'll tell you what that guy can do. Talk to a coach, and heal tell you what that player cannot do. It is a critical distinction. A coach's personal insecurities, biases and idiosyncrasies come across with each player evaluation, and a player ultimately is only as good as his coach thinks he is.

                      Two classic examples reside on the Pacers' roster.

                      Mark Jackson was a rookie of the year and All-Star in New York, partly because Rick Pitino built him up as such and showed him how he could overcome his speed deficiency. Stu Jackson and John MacLeod followed Pitino, and Mark Jackson suddenly went in the tank when these coaches decided Rod Strickland and Mo Cheeks could do Jackson's job better.

                      The Knicks fell apart in those two seasons. Then Pat Riley showed up and made Jackson a formidable weapon again, Larry Brown gave him even more responsibility with the Clippers and Indiana, and now Jackson deserves Hall of Fame consideration.

                      A coach's faith did all that.

                      Another example is Jalen Rose. When he came from Denver, Brown buried him and looked only at the mistakes he made with the ball. Bird arrived and saw a multi-dimensional player who could excel at three positions, and now Rose is one signature away from collecting $86 million over the next seven years.

                      Moral of the story? A coach's attitude toward a player means everything, and coaches are often too emotional with regard to players. Their negativity rubs off, and the relationship is permanently damaged.
                      I think Jamaal had Rick's vote of confidence. It's not like he was benched in favor of someone else. When Jamaal is healthy, it's clear he's Rick's PG.

                      Now maybe Rick didn't give Jamaal the freedom that he wanted on the court, but he ran the show, and was even the go to guy down the stretch.

                      Maybe Jamaal didn't have the competition behind him to push him harder? DA isn't it, McLeod played well, but as soon as Jamaal came back for the Nets game McLeod didn't see the floor.

                      A better example of this situation might have been with Sarunas. He had Bird's confidence, but was always a backup to Jamaal... probably rightfully so, but he sometimes was the 3rd backup, and didn't seem to have the confidence of coach Carlisle. There were even times where he came off of good games, and still didn't see much time in the next.

                      Now I'm not saying Runi is Jalen or Mark Jackson, but u could see signs of him being a good PG besides defensive issues. And though he's on the bench is GSW as well, he does have a lot of talent ahead of him in Baron and Monta. A lot better then Jamaal and DA/AJ.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Connecting the Dots...

                        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                        I think Ainge is one of the few GMs that would take Durant #1 as well! Though Oden would be deemed the next Bill Russell if the Celtics took him, I'm pretty sure the Celtics would take Durant and make whichever team at #2 very happy.
                        Apparently we differ on whether we think it is a good idea or not however. I think taking Durant number 1 overall and moving Pierce is a great idea for the Celtics, mainly because of Jefferson's improvement. I read yours as you thinking its just Ainge making another dumb move tho.


                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Connecting the Dots...

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          I think Jamaal had Rick's vote of confidence. It's not like he was benched in favor of someone else. When Jamaal is healthy, it's clear he's Rick's PG.
                          The last couple of season's, yes. You forget upon Rick's arrival Jamaal was benched the first half of the season.
                          I'm in these bands
                          The Humans
                          Dr. Goldfoot
                          The Bar Brawlers
                          ME

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Connecting the Dots...

                            Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                            Apparently we differ on whether we think it is a good idea or not however. I think taking Durant number 1 overall and moving Pierce is a great idea for the Celtics, mainly because of Jefferson's improvement. I read yours as you thinking its just Ainge making another dumb move tho.
                            I don't think either is a dumb move for Ainge and the Celtics. I think Oden could play beside Jefferson and Pierce, Ohio St. proved that Oden doesn't have to be the go to guy to be productive and dominant.

                            I think Durant could do the same. Him and Pierce could play the 2 and 3, with Jefferson being the inside presence. Of course you can go the trade Pierce route as well, but I'm not sure what you would get back, nor how productive Durant will be.

                            Good thing for the Celtics is that they will have options. They have young talent that teams would want, and they have an All-Star in Pierce as well

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Connecting the Dots...

                              Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                              I don't think either is a dumb move for Ainge and the Celtics. I think Oden could play beside Jefferson and Pierce, Ohio St. proved that Oden doesn't have to be the go to guy to be productive and dominant.

                              I think Durant could do the same. Him and Pierce could play the 2 and 3, with Jefferson being the inside presence. Of course you can go the trade Pierce route as well, but I'm not sure what you would get back, nor how productive Durant will be.

                              Good thing for the Celtics is that they will have options. They have young talent that teams would want, and they have an All-Star in Pierce as well
                              I would go the route of trading Pierce so you can move Green into the starting lineup and then get rid of Pierce's large contract in order to free up room to resign the ample amount of youngsters the Celtics have.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Connecting the Dots...

                                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                                The last couple of season's, yes. You forget upon Rick's arrival Jamaal was benched the first half of the season.
                                No, if I remember correctly, I believe it was in favor of Kenny Anderson? Turned out to be a pretty good regular season for the Pacers

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X