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

Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

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

  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

    Can someone please post content of the 6/25 blog entry on Indy Star's Pacers Insider entitled "What to do with O'Neal?" It's blocked at work. As a sidenote, the Boston, LA, and Minn papers are all covering this proposed trade in today's editions. The Star is only covering it through a reporter's blog, and I'm not even sure what it says.

    http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider

    Comment


    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

      Originally posted by RSmits View Post
      Can someone please post content of the 6/25 blog entry on Indy Star's Pacers Insider entitled "What to do with O'Neal?" It's blocked at work. As a sidenote, the Boston, LA, and Minn papers are all covering this proposed trade in today's editions. The Star is only covering it through a reporter's blog, and I'm not even sure what it says.

      http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider

      What to do with O'Neal

      Posted by Mike Wells



      It’s no secret that the Pacers and all-star forward Jermaine O’Neal are trying to end their seven-year relationship. O’Neal has held back no punches in saying he doesn’t want to be part of a rebuilding project.

      Now it’s a matter of finding a team that wants to acquire him and has enough to give back in return.

      That’s been easier said than done. As coach Jim O’Brien said last week “the odds are against the fact that Jermaine will be traded. It’s just reality.”

      First it was the Lakers reportedly saying they didn’t want to give up Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for O’Neal. Now it’s the Boston Celtics reportedly saying thanks, but no thanks to taking O’Neal.

      The latest scenario came Monday when the Celtics supposedly pulled out of the four-team deal that also featured the Lakers and Timberwolves because they are reluctant to give up Al Jefferson.

      Teaming O’Neal with Paul Pierce, Jefferson and the rest of the Celtics young players makes Boston a playoff team in the East.

      But there’s one significant question: Would O’Neal want to play for the Celtics? Or I should ask: Do the Celtics want O’Neal?

      Celtics executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge has never been a big fan of O’Neal’s, according to the Boston Globe. Ainge and O’Neal exchanged words through the media in the first round of the 2005 playoffs when the Pacers beat Boston in seven games.

      Ainge told O’Neal to stop “crying” about the Celtics’ physical play. The Pacers forward responded by saying: “He needs to do his job in the front office and let the players play the game. He's not out there playing the game. If the tables were turned the other way, then he would have been complaining about it, too...He needs to shut his mouth and do what a GM does and a president does, and that's run a team."

      Just like Timberwolves forward Kevin Garnett, O’Neal can opt out of his contract at the end of next season, which could easily cause teams to shy away from making a deal with the Pacers, if he doesn’t like the team he’s traded to.

      Should the Pacers continue to try to trade O’Neal or should they keep him on the roster?
      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

        Thanks. And here's the full article from the Boston Globe. I agree, I don't think the Celts want O'Neal, or O'Neal wants the Celts, or the Pacers want O'Neal on the Celts:

        http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...cs_a_mismatch/

        O'Neal, Celtics a mismatch
        Past ire makes rumors unlikely
        By Shira Springer, Globe Staff | June 26, 2007

        There are ongoing discussions concerning a four-team trade that could send Pacers forward/center Jermaine O'Neal to the Celtics, according to league sources. But those same sources said that it is extremely unlikely that O'Neal will ever play in a Boston uniform. Celtics executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge has never been a big fan of O'Neal's, and there remains the not-so-small matter of O'Neal being able to opt out of his contract after next season.

        During the 2005 playoffs, Ainge and O'Neal exchanged words through the media during the first-round series between the Celtics and Pacers. After Ainge criticized O'Neal for "crying" when he complained about the Celtics' physical play, O'Neal told Ainge to "shut his mouth and do what he does, and that's run the team."

        That would seem to make such a trade unlikely.

        But the teams involved in the talks -- Boston, Indiana, Minnesota, and the Lakers -- and the players and picks involved are worth noting because they could reappear in reconstituted trades. The Celtics could revisit a deal with Phoenix, among other teams.

        With less than three days until the draft, teams are hustling and compromising in an effort to come to terms on trades.

        If the four teams involved agreed to the deal as discussed yesterday, the Celtics would send Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, and the No. 5 pick to the Timberwolves and receive just O'Neal in return. Kevin Garnett would go from Minnesota to the Lakers. The Timberwolves would receive big man Kwame Brown and the No. 19 pick from the Lakers. The Pacers would take Lakers forward Lamar Odom and young Lakers center Andrew Bynum to complete the transaction.

        But if the ill will between O'Neal and Boston did not present enough of a stumbling block, Minnesota vice president of basketball operations Kevin McHale was prepared to add another. According to league sources, McHale doesn't want to do the deal unless Al Jefferson is included in the package sent to the Timberwolves.

        The Celtics have been working the phones to trade the No. 5 pick since receiving it in the draft lottery May 22. But Ainge has been extremely reluctant to part with Jefferson, according to team and league sources. The Celtics would like to add an All-Star veteran to the roster without jeopardizing the future as personified by Jefferson. Before O'Neal's name surfaced, Garnett was rumored to be that player. But late last week, Garnett's agent, Andy Miller, made it clear the Minnesota forward was not coming to Boston.

        The Celtics still have time to do a deal before the draft, but the big questions are whether they can find players willing to come to Boston and whether they can stomach giving up young talent along with the No. 5 pick. Considering how long they have tried to move the pick (in a package with players), it would not be surprising to see them use that selection in Thursday's draft.

        In yet another plot twist, the Charlotte Bobcats, who have the No. 8 selection, were told that Jeff Green would not be working out for them. That led to speculation that Green has a deal in place with a team picking ahead of Charlotte; why else would agent David Falk steer Green away from his longtime bud, Michael Jordan? But Green is due to work out today for Phoenix, which, at last check, did not have a pick ahead of Charlotte.

        The Suns, who have picks Nos. 24 and 29, also are bringing in Joakim Noah and Corey Brewer to join Green, meaning there has to be a deal in place, given that no agent would allow a client to work out this late unless the team had a chance to make a selection. Thus, the Suns must have something cooking with one of a few teams -- the Celtics possibly being one of them -- to move up to the 5-7 slot.

        Peter May of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

        Comment


        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

          Well, looks like JO will be a Pacer next year and that the coaching change will be the only change this offseason. We should have taken AB, Kwame, Framar and the 19, but it is too late now with KG likely headed to LA.
          Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
          http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

          Comment


          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

            The reports that Ainge doesn't like JO because of a few comments made in the playoffs three seasons ago seem awfully petty to me. I don't care if Ainge doesn't like JO, but please have a legitimate reason.

            Comment


            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

              Phoenix working out those guys sounds a lot like Diaw, Banks, and/or Marion may be going out.

              Comment


              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                The reports that Ainge doesn't like JO because of a few comments made in the playoffs three seasons ago seem awfully petty to me. I don't care if Ainge doesn't like JO, but please have a legitimate reason.
                Pretty sloppy writing by Wells all around I thought

                Originally posted by Mike Wells
                It’s no secret that the Pacers and all-star forward Jermaine O’Neal are trying to end their seven-year relationship. O’Neal has held back no punches in saying he doesn’t want to be part of a rebuilding project.
                Not sure what he means by "held back no punches". Seems like either an exaggeration or just an improper use of a cliche'. Kobe has pulled no punches. AI pulled no punches. Vince Carter pulled no punches.

                From what I've seen, JO has simply answered a few reporters' questions in a mild mannered tone over the last year saying essentially, "We're gonna talk about things this summer."
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  The reports that Ainge doesn't like JO because of a few comments made in the playoffs three seasons ago seem awfully petty to me. I don't care if Ainge doesn't like JO, but please have a legitimate reason.
                  Yes, that's pretty weak. I have a hard time believing someone could be successful being so thin-skinned. But then, we are talking about Ainge.

                  Wojnarowski is reporting that Pierce will demand a trade if Boston doesn't trade for veteran help this week. I seem to remember that Paul and JO are friends, so one would hope that would trump Ainge's personal feelings.

                  Here's the link: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

                  That said, I do understand them not wanting to give up Jefferson if they're only getting JO in return.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                    Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                    Wojnarowski is reporting that Pierce will demand a trade if Boston doesn't trade for veteran help this week.
                    AWESOME.

                    Let's see just how many players more desirable than JO we can get on the market. Maybe we drive his trade value down low enough so that all we can get back is Ron Artest.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                      From Boston's point of view only, doesn't it make more sense just to cut the Pacers out of it altogether, and make it a 3 way deal instead of involving us?

                      1.Lakers trade Odom, Bynum, Brown, and 19 to Boston
                      2.Boston trades Ratliff, Telfair, Green, 5 this year and 2009 first rounder of Minnesota's back to the Wolves
                      3. Minnesota sends Garnett to Los Angeles

                      Wouldnt a deal like this make more sense for Boston? They would keep Jefferson, Pierce, Rondo, and add Bynum, Odom, Kwame's expiring deal, and stay in the draft and get a good player at 19.

                      Maybe Minnesota does that deal, or something similar, even though it doesnt include Jefferson. They get their 2009 first rounder back (which they gave up in the Wally trade a few years ago), get Green ( a promising young perimeter player), Telfair (probably a project but who knows how he will turn out), all sorts of cap room for next years free agents, and a chance to get a great top player at pick 5.

                      LA maybe has to sweeten the deal with either a future pick or 2nd rounder this season, I dont know. maybe Minnesota makes LA take on another bad contract like Marko Jeric.

                      Regardless, I don't see why these teams wouldn't just cut the Pacers out of it all together. I'm sorry to say that for those who want the Pacers to start rebuilding now, but that's how I see it.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                        If the four teams involved agreed to the deal as discussed yesterday, the Celtics would send Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green, Sebastian Telfair, and the No. 5 pick to the Timberwolves and receive just O'Neal in return. Kevin Garnett would go from Minnesota to the Lakers. The Timberwolves would receive big man Kwame Brown and the No. 19 pick from the Lakers. The Pacers would take Lakers forward Lamar Odom and young Lakers center Andrew Bynum to complete the transaction.
                        ================================================== ==

                        If the Pacers agreed to this, they have just told the Lakers that all it would take to get JO is Bynum and Odom.....no picks just fillers to make it work.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          AWESOME.

                          Let's see just how many players more desirable than JO we can get on the market. Maybe we drive his trade value down low enough so that all we can get back is Ron Artest.
                          This is the troublesome thing. Well, that and the fact that players are running the show now. Get me help or I will demand a trade. And only trade me to a team with a legitimate shot and that is in either a big market or a warm weather climate.

                          This is all due to the internet and ESPN. Some schmuck (oh yes I did use the Yiddish word to describe the Polish guy) over there reports this (without a source, mind you), and now all of a sudden Boston is forced to mortgage their future to make their marginal franchise player rescind a demand that he has yet to make.

                          On a related note, JO had little to no trade value while KG is on the market. He makes almost the same money and is not quite as good. Why trade for the poor man's KG when the real thing is available for the same asking price?
                          Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                          http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                            Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                            On a related note, JO had little to no trade value while KG is on the market. He makes almost the same money and is not quite as good. Why trade for the poor man's KG when the real thing is available for the same asking price?

                            Who said they're both available for the same asking price?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                              Originally posted by Y2J View Post
                              Who said they're both available for the same asking price?
                              We seem to be asking for Bynum and LO, the same that the Lakers are offering for KG. As far as I understand, if we would take Kwame, AB and the pick, JO would be a Laker already.
                              Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                              http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                                Here's the latest from Chad Ford. Maybe Donnie was telling the truth yesterday:

                                http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...name=ford_chad

                                This is supposed to be the time of year that we focus on the NBA Draft, but with trade talk flying fast and furious, the entire NBA landscape -- and the draft order too -- could change dramatically this week.

                                "There are more teams looking to trade this year than any other time I've seen over the past seven years," one GM told me.

                                So what's going on? And how does it affect the draft?

                                Here's the latest ...

                                • What's happening with the Kevin Garnett four-team blockbuster? Depends on who you ask.

                                From what we can reconstruct, it appears that talks started when Lakers owner Jerry Buss and Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor began talking about a KG-to-the-Lakers trade between the two teams.

                                Once it became apparent that the Lakers didn't have a good enough package to entice the Wolves to do the deal, each team went back to an older offer.

                                The Lakers knew that the Pacers might take Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum for Jermaine O'Neal.

                                And the Wolves knew what the Celtics were offering for KG -- the No. 5 pick, Al Jefferson and Theo Ratliff.

                                The problem now is the Celtics aren't ready to give up the same package for O'Neal, and the Pacers reportedly never got roped back into the deal.

                                At least one other GM believes that Taylor isn't going to trade KG to the Lakers (a.k.a. the enemy) and would have eventually balked anyway. If that's the case, someone needs to sit him and Kevin McHale down and tell them that, at this point, getting some first-round picks and massive cap room would be a good deal for KG. If they wait much longer, he'll walk for nothing.

                                So, anyway ... what has to give? Either the Celtics decide to include Jefferson in the deal (very, very unlikely) or the other three teams try to find a way to sweeten the pot for Minnesota.

                                How about this crazy thought? Maybe the teams eliminate the Pacers from the conversation, and Boston takes back Odom and Bynum. Then Boston offers to sweeten the pot by sending the Wolves back their 2009 first-round pick that the Celtics acquired in the Wally Szczerbiak deal and the Lakers throw in a future first-round pick to boot.

                                I actually think getting Odom and Bynum makes more sense for Boston than getting O'Neal at this point. Put a starting lineup of Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Odom, Jefferson and Bynum on the floor with Delonte West, Tony Allen, Szczerbiak and Kendrick Perkins coming off the bench, and I think the Celtics are right back in the playoff picture in the East.

                                As for the Lakers, if this deal falls through, I think acquiring a player like Zach Randolph could be their backup plan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X