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

Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

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

  • #46
    Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    Question to all....

    Do you think that if JONeal goes....that TPTB should make it a requirement that he stuffs Tisnley in his suitcase and that both of them gets shipped off in a single package?

    or

    Do you want to get the best deal for JONeal.....even if it means keeping Tinsley?

    Its arguable..as suggested by previous articles ( and is one of the requirements that I think we should have on shipping out JONeal )...that the only way that Tinsley gets shipped off is if he gets packaged with one of our trade assets...most notably JONeal.

    Its likely that requiring Tinsley to be included as the "price to pay" to get JONeal....would reduce the overall trade value of JONeal. But I also understand that one of the only few ways that I think that we will move Tinsley is to package him with a tradeable asset.

    I guess it depends on the package that is offered and what is counter-offered.

    I think they will try to insist, its really the only way they'll be able to move Tinsley at this point. I really think Phil Jackson has enough ego to think he can make Tinsley all he can be, thats really why I like the Laker deal potential.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

      Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
      I'd take a proven player over potential anyday.
      I think the word "potential" has become WAY to contaminated with Pacers fans after Bender. Sure, I like proven quality better too, however you tend to pay that quality a lot more usually aswell too, which means the team can only have so many of those, especially if the teams we are trading with are getting our bad contracts, amongst other things, back for that proven quality (meaning that I don't see us trading more then one bad contract).

      I personally wouldn't mind going for Pierce. I don't like Vince and though I think Ray Allen is a great player, I don't see him as much more then a great scorer with a good handle who is getting a little old.

      I understand your thinking to go for the absolute top players. But, you have to pay for them badly (in talent) to get them and to keep them (financially).

      At the sametime we IMO don't have the necessary talent pool to make a lot of these sort of trades to turn this franchise around.

      Even if we follow your route/model I think we have to increase our talent pool and start using that dreaded (sp?) "P"-word to get other teams "hot" to trade some of their proven players for our younger players. We simply lack that attractiveness now IMO. We have JO, Ike, Shawn (a little), Danny and Foster (a little) as players other teams might be attracted too.

      So, we have that great player and a decent number two player. Who else do we have then? Because we are very likely to be giving up more then we are getting (except, probably, if we trade JO) in the amount of players. And, while I already am not impressed at all by our depth now, it would likely be dramatic if we start getting ambitious by targeting the absolute top players without a talent pool that can sustain that very far.

      I think the Pacers should take the building up with picks and young talent route, because I do think that it gives us more (financial)flexibility in the long run to resign our own talent and then add some extra talent by FA or trading for it by players that we have developed. Also I believe that keeping younger players together for an extended period helps bonding in the team and "feeling" each other better then just plugging in players here and there.

      Just my

      Regards,

      Mourning
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

        Odom is a really good player. I don't understand the Odom bashing. Playing him at the 4 would make us real versatile and an actual threat to play up-tempo.

        1. Daniels (assuming Tinsley is gone and we don't find a proven PG)
        2. Dunleavy (I'd rather he play off the bench, but having 2 solid perimter defenders in there with him could allow us to hide him more than this year)
        3. Granger (this spot is his for as long as he wants it)
        4. Odom (I love his game. Playing without Kobe should lead to him looking to score a little more)
        5. Bynum or Kwame (could always start Foster)

        Shawne, Ike, Foster and another PG would be our key bench players. (Hopefully the new coach can ignore Murph's contract # and just bury him on the bench)

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

          Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
          Odom is a really good player. I don't understand the Odom bashing. Playing him at the 4 would make us real versatile and an actual threat to play up-tempo.

          1. Daniels (assuming Tinsley is gone and we don't find a proven PG)
          2. Dunleavy (I'd rather he play off the bench, but having 2 solid perimter defenders in there with him could allow us to hide him more than this year)
          3. Granger (this spot is his for as long as he wants it)
          4. Odom (I love his game. Playing without Kobe should lead to him looking to score a little more)
          5. Bynum or Kwame (could always start Foster)

          Shawne, Ike, Foster and another PG would be our key bench players. (Hopefully the new coach can ignore Murph's contract # and just bury him on the bench)
          I would also rather have Dun Dun start to limit the amount of time he shares with Murphy on the court. I think those two playing at the sametime and without a great shotblocker such as JO around is asking for MAJOR trouble on the defensive end.

          I like Odom too. But, I'm a bit worried about his injuries to be honest which is one of the main reasons why I am not opposed to trading JO. But, I like Odom and the way he plays.

          Regards,

          Mourning
          2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

          2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            I think to get an Allstar in his prime, meaning JO or Garnett, to give Kobe a legit run at it all. LA has to for one give up on Bynum, which sounds like they could, and gather contracts that equal about 16 million.

            If you don't include Odom and honestly, if they are going to rebuild I would rather not take away minutes from Ike at 4 and DG at 3, so I don't want Odom.

            Then they would have to gather enough salaries that expire, see K Brown, to make it work financially. Throw in the #19, no it's not going to land Conley or Acie, but it's another chip.

            You could have a huge upside kid at the 5 and the development of young guys in Ike, Granger and S Williams, I'd watch that with enthusiasm to be honest.

            I'd like to make them take Tinsley, but maybe that can be for another day.
            I guess it depends on how high you are on on Bynum if you think he has a chance to be as good as JO is or better then you can make that deal and the draft pick. I wouldn't count on getting a star but who knows maybe somebody drops like Williams and Granger did. i wouldn't make the deal because I think there will be better offers out there. I also don't want Kwame at all.Even if its just for one year. He has a major rap against him that he's lazy and could care less about basketball.My fear is that next year he'll have a good year and start showing signs of his potential during his contract year and some stupid gm hopefully not Bird/Walsh is going to sign this guy for a ton of money and he'll going back to his old ways.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

              The guy had 33 last night with like 9 different injuries that JO would have sat through or played and gone 4-17. (Yeah, I know, cheap shot at JO. Couldn't resist)

              I was pissed when we couldn't get Odom for Artest. We can't miss out on this guy twice.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                While you may have made this statement in jest, that's the kind of thinking this team needs. I'm sick of hearing about guys like Jordan Farmar, Delonte West, Andrew Bynum etc.. We need to start thinking much bigger in my opinion. A guy like Ike Diogu doesn't get me excited. I'm not saying anything about his game just that he's no star player right now and that's what the Pacers need. We should be talking about guys like Vince Carter, Paul Pierce, Andre Iguodala, Ben Gordon etc.. and how combinations of our young players and overpaid role players may fit into trades for these type of players.
                You're living in a fantasy world buddy.

                The only way this current Pacers team ever gets back into title contention is to completely rebuild.

                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                Would Boston take MDJ, Daniels and Ike for Pierce?
                Boston hangs up on that proposal

                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                Would Philly take Granger, Harrison and Daniels for Iguodala & McKie?
                Philly wouldn't do it.

                Originally posted by Dr. Goldfoot View Post
                I'm sure there are better combo's this team could come up with. I'd trade Danny, Shawne and Ike with salary filler for Iguodala & a bad Philly contract. I'd take a proven player over potential anyday.

                Depends on how good said proven player is and the ceiling of said potential player. I'd rather take a chance on greatness (Bynum) than settle for good.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                  Originally posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
                  I'd say what the needs are, but they're better described by just saying Marcus Camby like skills. I'm sure you might be thinking Bynum. I'm not sold on Bynum. He's young and a good shot blocker with some offensive skills, but I think he's a bit weak in the mind. Whenever Bynum does something good, everybody seems to clap and say "good shot" and the commentators talk about him as if he's a baby climbing on the toilet and using it for the first time. I don't like that. I don't want a player that people are surprised to see play well.

                  I want a tenacious player that's hungry and won't back down from anybody out there. He needs to be able to run the floor, block shots, but not necessarly be a big time scorer, but be able to score from time to time. Andres Biedrins comes to mind. I don't want any softies. I don't want milk drinkers. I want toughness. Remember the Davis boys? They weren't the greatest, but they were the anchors to our toughness. They gave us an identity. That's a lot of what I miss about the Pacers now. If we trade Jermaine, then I'd like us to use him to address our need for a strong scorer at the 2-guard position. I'd like us to use other avenues to address our issues with the lacking toughness. I'll explain deeper in a thread of mine to come....
                  I remember watching a clip, last summer, I believe, in which Kareem was talking about his schooling of Bynum. I got the sense that Bynum wasn't really impressed by who Kareen was and wasn't as eager a pupil as one would want. It seemed as if he thought that he knew better than his teacher.

                  I mean, let's face it, how good can Bynum get? If there's SUPERSTAR in his future, he'd have shown alot more to this point in time. At best, he becomes a poor man's Eddy Curry on offense with SOME defensive skills.

                  In other words, a run of the mill BIG MAN circa 1970's/80's. Not much use for him in the new game.

                  Why does this team always gravitate to SLOW BALL players. The rest of the league is trading FOR ATHLETES, INDIANA is trading AWAY ATHLETES for PLODDERS. Damn, Rony Turiaf is more athletic than Bynum.

                  SLOW BALL IS DEAD.

                  Let's smell the coffee already.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                    Originally posted by Speed View Post
                    I hate to throw trades out, too many variables, but this works if you think Bynum will be a force.

                    JO
                    Tinsley

                    for

                    K Brown in the last year of contract
                    L Odom
                    Bynum
                    And the #19 pick.


                    You'd have to move Foster for a decent point Guard imho, but this gets Tinsley off the books, you get an expiring contract, you get a young guy that some think is a franchise and others, don't. Bynum is 19.

                    Also, who do you think average more rebounds a game JO or Odom.... yes Odom barely, but still that surprised me. Odom is a guy who is going to miss time, but ya know so is JO. I'm not going to try to sell anyone on Odom, but he only has 2 years left on his contract and he can play. The 19 pick would be a nice way to get a young PG, as well. Anyway, yes alot for LA to give up, but not really if you think about it, they aren't going anywhere with a 19 yr old center, and a 34 year old Odom. Smush Parker was their PG and Tinsley would be a big upgrade there, imo. I really think this would work on both sides and fairly easily.

                    Pacers develop the Class of 05 draft with the 9, 10, and 17th picks in Ike, Bynum, and Granger.
                    This is a good post in its entirety, however, one thing I must repeat.

                    Bynum is 19.
                    Bynum is 19.
                    Bynum is 19.
                    Bynum is 19.
                    Bynum is 19.


                    @ people suggesting he's not going to pan out because he hasn't won MVP after two years of Kareem coaching.

                    @ people saying we don't need Odom. Sure, the same way we don't need LeBron.

                    Back to reality, though. I wouldn't want the Pacers to take Farmar. Take the pick instead and move up to get Conley, as suggested earlier.

                    PG - Conley/McLeod/Daniels
                    SG - Daniels/Williams
                    SF - Granger/Williams/Dunleavy
                    PF - Odom/Murphy/Baston
                    C - Diogu/Bynum/Murphy

                    I hate to tell y'all but that team, as young as it is, would be better than the crap they trotted out this past season.

                    The P's would still ideally find a way to dump Dunleavy and eventually Murphy, but that's unlikely so I'll take them as bench players.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                      Originally posted by v_d_g View Post
                      I remember watching a clip, last summer, I believe, in which Kareem was talking about his schooling of Bynum. I got the sense that Bynum wasn't really impressed by who Kareen was and wasn't as eager a pupil as one would want. It seemed as if he thought that he knew better than his teacher.

                      I mean, let's face it, how good can Bynum get? If there's SUPERSTAR in his future, he'd have shown alot more to this point in time. At best, he becomes a poor man's Eddy Curry on offense with SOME defensive skills.

                      In other words, a run of the mill BIG MAN circa 1970's/80's. Not much use for him in the new game.

                      Why does this team always gravitate to SLOW BALL players. The rest of the league is trading FOR ATHLETES, INDIANA is trading AWAY ATHLETES for PLODDERS.

                      SLOW BALL IS DEAD.

                      Let's smell the coffee already.
                      1. the kid is only 19. A little early to make a final judgement on him, don't you think?

                      2. the guy has good mobility, is big and I think he will become a serious inside prescence both on the offense and defensive end as he gains more experience, gains more strength, etc.

                      You don't think JO was playing at the same level at age 19 as he is now, right?

                      Further, you are not planning on playing a lineup with 5 guards or 3 guards and 2 small forwards are you? Centers may not be very envogue currently, but that doesn't mean that they are not needed and automatically make the gamepace slow.

                      But, seriously, since you seem to always know how to critisize the Pacers so well, maybe you should give us some insight on what you think the Pacers should do?

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                        True Bynum is only 19, but I recall folks saying that about another guy who is on the Lakers?

                        I like Odom and all, but the guy always seem to injure something... and that is NOT what the Pacers need. Maybe he can stay healthy? I think we've had enough players on our team with that outlook.

                        Yes Bynum could pan out and be wonderful, or he could pan out to be a dud, are you willing to take that gamble on moving our biggest trade asset and only all-star for a 19 yr. old who came directly from high school that MIGHT pan out? Oh let's throw in an injury-prone Odom who plays the position our all-star is in, or the position we're most crowded at.

                        Yeah tradiing for JO who came out of high school panned out, but Dale Davis wasn't the type of player Jermaine Oneal is, and was clearly on the downside of his career.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          I think to get an Allstar in his prime, meaning JO or Garnett, to give Kobe a legit run at it all. LA has to for one give up on Bynum, which sounds like they could, and gather contracts that equal about 16 million.

                          If you don't include Odom and honestly, if they are going to rebuild I would rather not take away minutes from Ike at 4 and DG at 3, so I don't want Odom.

                          Then they would have to gather enough salaries that expire, see K Brown, to make it work financially. Throw in the #19, no it's not going to land Conley or Acie, but it's another chip.

                          You could have a huge upside kid at the 5 and the development of young guys in Ike, Granger and S Williams, I'd watch that with enthusiasm to be honest.

                          I'd like to make them take Tinsley, but maybe that can be for another day.
                          Salarywise...I don't think that there is any deal that we can make that could not involve Odom....unless we take the majority of their players outside of Kobe, Odom and VladRad.

                          The best deal that I can think of that would make sense for the Lakers ( and not gut them of their entire Guard rotation while not taking on Tinsley ) while NOT taking in significant salary would be to either go with Bynum+Kwame+Cook+Farmar+1st round pick

                          Incoming Salary:

                          Kwame - 9.07 mil owed in 2007-2008
                          Book - 3.5 mil owed in 2007-2008
                          Bynum - 2.17 mil owed in 2007-2008
                          Farmer - 1.01 mil owed in 2007-2008

                          Total - 15.75 mil

                          Outgoing Salary:

                          JONeal - 19.71 mil owed in 2007-2008

                          I think that we are pretty close to the incoming salary is very close to the 125% incoming / outgoing salaries. If not...then we can add in some additional filler to make it work.

                          I don't know...its going to be pretty hard to work something out that would make sense for both teams that does not involve Odom and/or VladRad.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                            Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
                            Odom is a really good player. I don't understand the Odom bashing. Playing him at the 4 would make us real versatile and an actual threat to play up-tempo.

                            1. Daniels (assuming Tinsley is gone and we don't find a proven PG)
                            2. Dunleavy (I'd rather he play off the bench, but having 2 solid perimter defenders in there with him could allow us to hide him more than this year)
                            3. Granger (this spot is his for as long as he wants it)
                            4. Odom (I love his game. Playing without Kobe should lead to him looking to score a little more)
                            5. Bynum or Kwame (could always start Foster)

                            Shawne, Ike, Foster and another PG would be our key bench players. (Hopefully the new coach can ignore Murph's contract # and just bury him on the bench)
                            The only concern I have about Odom is that if he does come over in any trade, he would likely become the #1 scoring option on the team. Opposing defenses will start to focus in on him more. On the Lakers, he's the #2 man....I'm not sure how well he would react to becoming the #1 man on the team. My hope is that his "passing" skills would really help out.

                            I will admit that a rotation of Odom, Granger, Marquis, Dunleavy, Bynum, Ike, Shawne fascinates me.

                            We would have a bunch of unselfish players. I'm not sure is that is a good or bad thing. We would have to figure out a way to get a SG or PG that is aggressive on the PG end and doesn't mind taking the shot. The way that I look at any lineup that we have that involves Odom ( and the majority of our existing roster ) is that we won't have a legit #1 scoring option...but a few 2nd scoring options and a whole bunch of 3rd/4th scoring options.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                              Originally posted by bnd45 View Post
                              Odom is a really good player. I don't understand the Odom bashing. Playing him at the 4 would make us real versatile and an actual threat to play up-tempo.

                              1. Daniels (assuming Tinsley is gone and we don't find a proven PG)
                              2. Dunleavy (I'd rather he play off the bench, but having 2 solid perimter defenders in there with him could allow us to hide him more than this year)
                              3. Granger (this spot is his for as long as he wants it)
                              4. Odom (I love his game. Playing without Kobe should lead to him looking to score a little more)
                              5. Bynum or Kwame (could always start Foster)

                              Shawne, Ike, Foster and another PG would be our key bench players. (Hopefully the new coach can ignore Murph's contract # and just bury him on the bench)
                              I also like this idea. With the Lakers games I've seen, not many, I would start Bynum over Brown. If we were going to play more uptempo, I think Bynum would fit in more and he could develop quicker this way. If we can get rid of Murphy this year by way of some miracle...we should because I don't think he is going to fit in the Pacers blueprints of the next couple of years.

                              I would look to Granger and Ike to definitely up their ppg with this rotation also. Not to mention Williams as well. Personally, I think Shawne can become an excellent three-point shooter, and he has already shown us flashes. So all in all, I think I would be okay with this move as long as we would make another after it to fill some holes.
                              I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Stein on Lakers with lots of JO talk

                                Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                                Serious question: Would that make you more of a Lakers fan than a Pacers fan, if that happened?
                                I will always love the Pacers, but the Lakers would up to the list and be my 2nd favorite team. And I will watch their games just as I will watch the Pacers game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X