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

Sports Guy Draft preview

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

  • Sports Guy Draft preview

    The only reason I post this is the Brad Miller mention, which if Harmonica were still around, would make this an easy 8 page thread.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...simmons/070620

    The VP of Common Sense offers his draft advice



    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    With the NBA draft eight days away and some preposterous trade rumors floating around, we need to sift through the nonsense and determine what every lottery team should do next week. To solve this question, I turned to the one person who hasn't been biased by private workouts in which players face off against janitors and chairs, the one who refuses to be impressed by Spencer Hawes' length and Al Thornton's spurtability, the one who asks questions like, "Why isn't anyone worried about Yi Jianlian's adjustment to American culture?" and "If Brandan Wright couldn't play hard all the time in college, what makes you think he'll play hard in the pros?"

    That's right, I turned to the self-proclaimed VP of Common Sense. In other words, I turned to myself. Let's rip through the lottery from top to bottom:

    1. Portland Trail Blazers
    We know who they're taking because it's the No Balls Association and nobody would ever dare pass up a franchise center with a ceiling (Greg Oden) for a franchise forward with no ceiling (Kevin Durant). That lack of originality explains why the league is so screwed up and a limited team like the Cavs could become the worst Finals team since the '59 Lakers.

    Here's what I don't get: The Blazers already have two quality inside players (Zach Randolph and LaMarcus Aldridge), which means they'll eventually trade Randolph for 60 cents on an already diluted dollar. Yeah, he's a loon, but he's a superb low-post scorer who would thrive with Durant spacing the floor for him. So why not explore trading down if Seattle is enamored with Oden? They could just trade the No. 1 and Darius Miles' craptastic contract (expires in 2011) for Rashard Lewis (sign and trade) and the No. 2, then play Brandon Roy, Lewis, Durant and Randolph at the same time (with Aldridge coming off the bench). Tell me, who's double-teaming Randolph with Lewis, Durant and Roy out there? Don't they have to explore that one? Do we need to dial the phone for Kevin Pritchard?

    The VP's verdict: If the Blazers can't move Randolph for Antawn Jamison (expiring in 2008) or Rasheed Wallace (expiring 2009), either swap picks with Seattle (and dump Miles on the Sonics for Lewis) or keep the pick and take Durant.

    (Note: They won't do this, of course. It's the No Balls Association. Oh, well.)

    2. Seattle Sonics
    The Sonics just hired highly regarded Spurs exec Sam Presti, one of the few NBA execs who allegedly doesn't need a VP of Common Sense. If this is true, then he's smart enough to stay at No. 2 and take whomever Portland doesn't take. Here's what the VP of CS would do in Presti's shoes:

    A. Stand pat and take Durant.
    B. Re-sign Lewis as long as it's not more than $60 million for six years. Remember, everyone in the league is overpaid by 20-percent -- he's a $50 million player so you can't give him one cent more than 60
    C. Offer Ray Allen to the Clippers for Corey Maggette, Sam Cassell (expiring in 2008) and the No. 14.
    D. Force Robert Swift to report to camp with a bowl haircut.

    So here's what the Sonics would have: A future superstar in Durant; two quality scorers (Maggette and Lewis) for the combined price of one max player; the No. 14 pick; Chris Wilcox, Cassell and Luke Ridnour; some young big guys with upside (Johan Petro and Mouhamed Sene); no eight-figure contracts; and a 7-foot redheaded center with a bowl haircut. For a team that's moving God knows where in 2008, that's a marketable nucleus wherever it goes. And just for the record, I'm rooting for them to go to Vegas. I'd like to make the drive in a few months and see Durant with his own billboard on the I-15, right between David Cassidy and Carrot Top.

    The VP's verdict: Take Durant, keep Lewis, trade Allen to the Clippers.

    3. Atlanta Hawks
    Al Horford is the third-best prospect, the most NBA-ready rookie outside of Oden and Durant, a potential All-Star and someone who will demand double-teams by the All-Star break of his second season. Since the Hawks don't have a similar player on their roster, you'd think they would make room for him. You would think. Of course, from a comedy standpoint, nothing would be funnier than the Hawks finally picking a point guard (in this case, Mike Conley) during the one draft when they clearly should have taken the best player on the board (Horford). If this happens, we need to schedule a three-on-three game every All-Star Weekend -- Conley, Marvin Williams and Shelden Williams against Chris Paul, Brandon Roy and Horford -- with drunken, bitter Hawks fans announcing the contest with Billy Knight. That could even surpass the Bavetta-Barkley footrace.

    The VP's verdict: Take Horford. Please. Just do it.

    4. Memphis Grizzlies
    They just hired Chris Wallace away from the Celtics, which was like former FEMA director Mike Brown getting hired by France's federal relief agency. I can't even summon an adequate reaction for this move. This was the guy who spent a lottery pick on Kedrick Brown, drafted Joe Forte over Tony Parker, raved about Jerome Moiso's upside potential and said publicly that Shammond Williams was the key to a trade that included the Celtics' picking up an alcoholic forward with a max contract (Vin Baker). It's almost like the NBA is daring me to reconvene the Atrocious GM Summit.

    (Note: Baker was arrested for a DUI on Tuesday, just 24 hours after Wallace was introduced as the Grizzlies' new GM and 96 hours after Parker was named the 2007 Finals MVP. I found this interesting. No word yet if Shammond Williams was the key to the DUI.)

    Anyway, here's the worst thing about the 2007 draft: The Nos. 3 and 4 teams determine picks 3-10 (either by picks or trades), but the No. 3 team is a mess, and the No. 4 team has no money, no fans and a GM who bombed so memorably in Boston that my father called me on Monday night just to say, "I don't think I've ever been this incredulous about anything." So you'd probably have a better chance predicting the next California earthquake than predicting this particular draft for the Grizzlies.

    With that said, here's the most logical game plan:

    A. Since they're stuck in a conference with Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Tony Parker, Devin Harris, Baron Davis ... I mean, how is Conley NOT the pick here? They're already loaded with talented young guys at every other position (Pau Gasol, Mike Miller, Hakim Warrick, Rudy Gay) and there's no real difference between Conley and the next six guys on the board. So what am I missing? Why are we even discussing this?

    (Whoops, we're discussing it because the guy who made this pick did all the things mentioned four paragraphs ago. My bad.)

    B. Offer Pau Gasol to Milwaukee (for Andrew Bogut and a 2008 No. 1) and Charlotte (for the No. 8, the No. 22 and Sean May). I like Gasol (he's like a more athletic Dino Radja, sans the chain smoking) and he would have propelled Chicago into the Finals last spring, but why pay a big man $13 million a season (and climbing) when you're not going anywhere any time soon? As good as Conley could be some day, under-20 point guards always take time to develop ... so why not flip Gasol for younger assets and draft picks? Just for the record, Wallace should feel obligated to move Gasol to the Celtics for 50 cents on the dollar (Ratliff and the No. 5) as an apology for everything that happened from 2001 to 2003. No, seriously.

    The VP's verdict: Take Conley and deal Gasol before he sulks through another lost season and they're looking at four pesetas on the Spanish dollar for him.

    5. Boston Celtics
    If you're the Suns and you can win the 2008 title, you make a run at Kevin Garnett. If you're the Celtics and have Paul Pierce, a painfully young supporting cast and a coach with a career winning percentage of .467, you don't. Of course, this is the NBA, so the Suns are backing off and the Celtics are pursuing KG with a package that includes Al Jefferson, the No. 5 pick, Gerald Green, Wally Szczerbiak's contract and/or Theo Ratliff's expiring deal (for KG and possibly one more contract). It's hard to blame them for considering the deal because, for the first time in five years, the Celtics would be relevant again. You can sell tickets with a Pierce-Garnett combo, make a few more TNT appearances, maybe even get Barkley and the "PTI" guys talking about you. After what happened in the 2007 playoffs, it's not unrealistic to think that Pierce, KG and 10 drunks from Sullivan's Tap could win the East next spring.

    Then the common sense starts kicking in.

    They'd be sacrificing every non-Pierce trading asset for superior defense at the 4-spot and a slight points/rebounding upgrade. They'd also be losing the league's best young low-post scorer (Jefferson) for a mercurial clubhouse guy who peaked three years ago and hasn't made the playoffs since. Seriously, would you rather pay Jefferson $4 million combined for the next two seasons, take Corey Brewer fifth (someone who could guard LeBron, Wade, Arenas and Kobe for the next 10 years), use Ratliff's contract to pursue one more veteran (someone like Andrei Kirilenko, for instance) and build a real basketball team? Or would you rather pay Kevin Garnett $46 million over the next two seasons, flank him with Pierce and nobody else, then hope both guys somehow stay healthy for the next three years? When Kobe and Shaq won three straight titles as a two-man team, they had the likes of Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Brian Shaw, Ron Harper and Phil Jackson to help them. Do you see anyone like that on Boston's roster from the coach on down?

    Overpaying for KG looks like a classic Sonny Corleone move, a panic trade specifically pushed by people worried about their jobs, a short-term fix that gets OK'd once the owner becomes sufficiently excited about owning an NBA team that has Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce on it. So what if it's 2007 and not 2003? We have KG and Pierce! Anytime the reason for a sports trade is, "We need to roll the dice, I'm tired of treading water, I want to be relevant again," it's almost like watching somebody lose for a few hours at a $25 blackjack table, then become frustrated and start betting $100 a hand. Well, you know what happens to those people? They lose. They run out of money. They slink away. And after a few seconds, somebody else sits in their seat. Which is exactly what's going to happen here.

    Anyway, I'm against the KG trade, if only for this reason: If I were running Minnesota, I'd grab Jefferson, Green and the No. 5 for KG in a cocaine heartbeat. It's a no-brainer for them, especially when the sucky contract they'd take back (Szczerbiak) happens to be one of the most popular athletes in the history of the franchise. I want the Celtics to be on the other side of a no-brainer for once. Call me idealistic. Fortunately, as a basketball buddy pointed out last night, "You're forgetting one thing: Why the hell would KG want to play in Boston?" Excellent point. He'll squash this deal in two seconds.

    The VP's verdict: Take Brewer, keep Jefferson and actively pursue Kirilenko. I'd also consider trading down three spots (for the No. 8 and No. 22) if Charlotte wants Yi and Brewer would definitely be there at No. 8.

    6. Milwaukee Bucks
    Here's the Eastern team that could make a quantum leap next season: The Bucks only have to re-sign Mo Williams, get Bobby Simmons healthy and use this sixth pick on Brandan Wright and they're good to go. Stick those three with Charlie Villanueva, Andrew Bogut and Michael Redd and that's a pretty sweet nucleus on paper, although they definitely need to sign a crazy Australian 12th man who calls everyone "Mate" and gives Bogut someone to drink with. I'm not a huge Wright fan, but he's a shifty inside scorer with deceivingly long arms (well, when he's trying) and the Bucks desperately need inside scoring, as well as someone who won't make Villanueva feel so bad for mailing in every fourth game. Also, Wright is so damned long that Jay Bilas might start flogging himself in delight during the draft. Man, is Brandan Wright long. That is one long dude.

    The VP's verdict: Take Wright, re-sign Williams and pursue Gasol for Bogut and a 2008 No. 1.

    7. Minnesota Timberwolves
    Here's what I think Kevin McHale will do: Wear an ugly sweater, back out of a KG deal at the last second and take Spencer Hawes at No. 7, followed by KG snapping in mid-December after a 30-point loss to the Spurs and killing everyone in Minnesota's locker room except Ricky Davis, who will calmly sit in front of his locker watching it happen while drinking a malt 40.

    Here's what McHale should do:

    A. If he can't get Amare for KG or the Ratliff/Jefferson/Green/No. 5 life preserver from Boston, why not use KG to dump every bad contract on the roster and start over? In other words, trade him to the Knicks along with Marko Jaric, Trenton Hassell, Troy Hudson and Mark Blount for Stephon Marbury (expires in 2009), Steve Francis (ditto), David Lee, Channing Frye and New York's 2007 pick. The Knicks are the only team who'd consider a deal like this; they might even do some damage in the East with a nucleus of KG, Curry and Crawford. And it would be euphorically entertaining to watch the Knicks fans talk themselves into the KG era, right down to Spike splurging for a No. 21 home jersey and KG coming up juuuuuuuuust short like Ewing always did back in the day. I'm giddy just thinking about it. Anyway, if the Wolves move KG, then they should follow that up with Yi at No. 7, if only because Ricky Davis might take Yi under his wing and nickname him "Yi Gin and Juice."

    B. If they keep KG, take Jeff Green or Al Thornton because they'd help right away. At gunpoint, I'd go with Green -- he was a big-game guy in college (well, except for the last one) and won't be afraid of playing with KG as he's breaking down mentally and asking Green things like, "Just between you and me, if I killed Marko Jaric tonight, would he immediately come off our cap?"

    The VP's verdict: Try like hell to trade KG, then take Yi. If they keep KG, swap picks with the Bulls (who apparently love Yi), take Green or Thornton ninth and pick up something for their troubles (Thabo Sefolosha?). Then, force McHale to retire before his ongoing incompetency changes the way I watch old Celtics games. On Monday night, when NBA TV was showing Game 7 of the 1981 Sixers-Celtics series, I keep waiting for young McHale to stop the game so he could sign Steve Mix to a $40 million contract with a 15 percent trade kicker.

    8. Charlotte Bobcats
    I'd love to see them pursue Gasol (with the No. 8, the No. 22 and May), re-sign Gerald Wallace and compete with a nucleus of Gasol, Wallace, Ray Felton, Emeka Okafor, Walter Hermann, Adam Morrison and one more free agent swingman like Mo Peterson or Desmond Mason. If they keep the pick, don't they have to take Joakim Noah here? He fits in the "guys who had success in college" theme and gives them a ton of flexibility at the 4/5 spots, right? Whatever they do, I feel like the Bobcats are closer to being good than people realize ... plus, they're the ultimate fantasy team sprung to life, just an ultra-eclectic, improbable mix of recognizable players. If there was ever a franchise that could accommodate a Paul Shirley comeback, this is it.

    The VP's verdict: Make a serious run at Gasol, with Noah as the backup plan.

    9. Chicago Bulls
    If they keep the pick, they'll go big with Noah, Yi or Hawes (whoever is left). Tragically, they missed their window to trade P.J. Brown's expiring deal for a Garnett/Gasol/Allen/Pierce type and need a third team to help them for a Kobe trade (unless they can pull off a complicated sign and trade with Andres Nocioni or PJ Brown, which seems simple on paper but never, ever actually happens). I don't see the Wizards moving Arenas because their fans would riot if they gave him away for Ben Gordon, Chris Duhon and Ty Thomas. We need to stop pretending this could happen. But what if the Celtics became involved? Check out this three-teamer and include the Lakers getting the No. 9 pick from Chicago. Now tell me ... who doesn't make that deal?

    (The answer: The Celtics. They'd much rather make a reckless run in 2008 over finally carving out a logical long-term plan that makes sense. This is why we've changed course four times in four seasons with Danny Ainge. And we're headed for No. 5 within the next eight days. I will now light my '86 championship video on fire.)

    The VP's verdict: Try to get a third team to facilitate a Kobe trade. ... If that doesn't work, take Wright, Noah or Hawes (whoever is left), re-sign Nocioni and Brown and hope L.A. waits until February to trade Kobe. Although he'll probably pull a Ned Braden and start stripping during home games within the first few weeks.

    10. Sacramento Kings
    Dead man walking!!!!!!!!!! There isn't a more depressing NBA roster than this one -- washed-up All-Stars, multiple bad contracts, one lunatic (Artest), a new head coach in Reggie Theus (the third one in 14 months), the possibility of relocation within the next two-three years, and if that's not enough, my entire outdoor blackjack table at the Wynn decided at 5:30 Saturday afternoon that the Maloofs weren't cool anymore, that they were even a little creepy. So whatever they do at No. 10, it's not helping that litany of problems. The good news: Green is the best player on the board and never should have slipped this far -- shades of Caron Butler a few years ago, actually.

    The VP's verdict: Take Green; try to get contenders to bite on Ron Artest and the just-about-washed-up Mike Bibby (expiring in 2009) for expiring contracts; test Brad Miller's DNA to make sure scientists didn't secretly do a Cage/Travolta "Face Off" switch with Miller and Greg Ostertag, since that's the only possible explanation for how much Miller stunk last season.

    11. Atlanta Hawks
    Nothing would be funnier than seeing them take Jeff Green or Julian Wright here. Repeat: Nothing. But they need a point guard, whether it's Acie Law IV (my personal favorite since he's ready right away) or Javaris Crittenton (the illogical choice because he's another project on a team filled with projects). Naturally, they reportedly love Crittendon. The Hawks never disappoint. We might need to just blow up their team name and reinvent them, kinda like how TNN turned into Spike TV.

    The VP's verdict: Swap picks with the Clippers (picking 14th and desperately needing a small forward with size, unless they can splurge for a heart transplant for Tim Thomas between now and next week) and pick up the 45th pick and a 2010 No. 2 for their troubles, then take Law IV at No. 14. Of course, this makes far too much sense and could never happen.

    12. Philadelphia 76ers
    They're getting someone from the Thornton/Green/Wright group. And you know what? That's a win-win all the way around for the Sixers -- I like all three of those guys. Thornton works the best because he'll produce right away, he's fun to watch and fits in perfectly with the Miller-Iguodala-Dalembert feel. Maybe he's not a rocket scientist (it's always a red flag when someone's graduating from FSU at age 23, no?), but I'm not sure you need a high score on the Wonderlic Test to take turns throwing down Andre Miller alley-oops with Andre Iguodala. And by the way, as a Celtics fan, I am hoping and praying that Thornton goes before this spot. I don't want this guy in my division.

    The VP's verdict: Thornton. Now we have to talk Billy King out of giving Shavlik Randolph a $45 million contract extension.

    13. New Orleans
    The easiest call of the lottery: They desperately need a shooting guard and there's an exciting one sitting right here (USC's Nick Young). If the entire draft was that easy, this column would have been 400 words.

    The VP's verdict: Young.

    14. L.A. Clippers
    Could they really land someone as good as Julian Wright with the 14th pick??? Is that really possible? Whoops, I don't care, I gave up my tickets.

    The VP's verdict: Don't raise season ticket prices 25 percent after a 40-42 season.

    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  • #2
    Re: Sports Guy Draft preview

    I thought this was hilarious when I read it today. The Hawks stuff is pure gold.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sports Guy Draft preview

      Simmons is an asphole, but a funny one who sees the ridiculous. Interesting and fun read.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sports Guy Draft preview

        The latest BS report had Ric Bucher on it and was probably the best yet. Worth a listen.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment

        Working...
        X