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

1/27/04 "Is Kobe the prize of 2004?"

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

  • 1/27/04 "Is Kobe the prize of 2004?"

    Is Kobe the prize of 2004?

    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Monday, January 26
    Updated: January 27
    9:35 AM ET

    Cap space. It's priceless.

    That's the mantra being pushed around the NBA as we approach the Feb. 19 trade deadline. The Rasheed Wallace sweepstakes are essentially an attempt by several teams (read: Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit) to dump a big salary or two so they'll have money to burn this summer as they eye the free-agent class of 2004.

    Such an approach begs the question: Are there any free agents worth writing home about? And, even more important, will any team have enough cash and a good enough sales pitch to land the ultimate prize -- Kobe Bryant?


    Kobe Bryant
    Shooting Guard
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Profile


    2003-2004 SEASON STATISTICS
    GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
    34 21.9 4.9 4.4 .422 .852

    Bryant has been hinting all year that he's serious about opting out of his contract and exploring free-agency. He's had issues with coach Phil Jackson and teammate Shaquille O'Neal, and those close to him reportedly feel Bryant is looking for a team of which he can be the leader.

    If Kobe had doubts about rejoining the Lakers before, comments by Jackson over the weekend won't help matters. Jackson reiterated that the Lakers were O'Neal's team and that Bryant would have to continue to take a back seat for the next few seasons.

    "I think, ultimately, that's going to be one of the understandings about Kobe coming back and being part of the Lakers, is to what extent does he want to be a coachable player in the structure that we have as a team in the present day?" Jackson told the L.A. Daily News. "Which would include Shaq being here. Shaq's going to be the focal point."

    "This is what we committed to," Jackson added. "We have (two) more years with Shaquille, and it's $50 million-plus out there that are still going to paid to Shaquille, so that's all part of the package. We're not going anywhere from that. Kobe has complemented Shaq extremely well, when he's wanted to. And there's never been playoff runs like we've had. And so we know that it's possible when we want to get to that point. And that's the direction we're headed this year. We want to get to that point this year."

    That, to Insider, sounds a lot like an ultimatum to Kobe. If what everyone is saying about Kobe is true (and, of course, assuming he is acquitted of the charges now against him) teams are going to have a great shot at landing him this summer.

    Who? That's the real issue. If last summer was any indication ... things don't look too good. The Spurs were the big players last summer. Unfortunately for San Antonio, its big score was not Jason Kidd. Instead, the Spurs settled for Rasho Nesterovic. The Heat struck out on Elton Brand before nabbing Lamar Odom. The Nuggets claimed Andre Miller from purgatory but had to stop the rebuilding effort there. The Jazz, who had more money than anyone, convinced Corey Maggette and Jason Terry to sign offer sheets but ultimately walked away empty handed.

    The common denominator? Last summer just about everything went through Kidd or the Clippers. Unlike the rest of the free agents out there, Clippers free agents are sure thing. Buy 'em a drink and they'll get into bed with anyone. They'll do anything to get out of L.A.

    Will this year be any different?

    Assuming the cap rises to $45 million, six teams will have enough cap room to make some noise. To get next year's cap figure, Insider took into account a team's committed salaries for '04, free-agent cap holds for players the team is likely to keep, minimum roster holds for teams that have fewer than 11 players under contract, and first-round pick cap holds based on their current standings.

    2004 Cap Space
    Team Proj. Cap Space
    Jazz $30 million
    Bobcats $23 million
    Nuggets $13-21 million
    Clippers $11.8 million
    Spurs $11.3 million
    Suns $6.5 million
    The results? The Jazz, Bobcats and Nuggets will be the only teams with "max" cap room without major adjustments. The Nuggets can increase their cap space to roughly $21 million if Marcus Camby either opts out of his contract or the team decides to waive him before the start of the season. The last year of Camby's contract is not guaranteed if he chooses not to opt out. The Bobcats, although they have the room, have to sign an entire team and are unlikely to go after a big-name free agent.

    The Clippers stand at $11.8 million and can increase that cap room to $13.8 million if they choose not to pick up their option on Marko Jaric. The Spurs also have a signficant amount of room, but they have two players in restricted free agency, Emanuel Ginobili and Hedo Turkoglu, that they are interested in re-signing.

    The Suns' previously reported $9 million in cap room is lowered by the fact they have two first-round draft picks (their own and the Knicks') that figure to be in the lottery. The cap holds for those two picks should reduce their available cap space by $3-4 million.

    The Pistons could be looking at $6 million in cap room but will use it to try to re-sign Mehmet Okur. The Cavaliers and Wizards will have some cap room, but not enough to make a run at a major free agent.

    Here's Insider's first peek at the free-agent class of 2004. While the names on the board may leave fans breathless, there's little chance most of these guys ever leave home.

    Top 10 2004 Free Agents

    Key = (R) = Restricted free agent | (PO) = Player Option

    1. Kobe Bryant, G, Lakers (PO)
    The skinny: Assuming Kobe isn't serving time in Eagle County, Kobe's dilemma is this -- is there enough money out there from a good team to lure him out of L.A.? I can't imagine him playing for the Jazz or Nuggets, based on geography more than the make-up of the team. The Spurs, Suns and, to a lesser extent, the Clippers would be more desirable options. The Spurs would be able to get close, if they give up on everyone else. The Suns would need to dump their two first-round picks or another player to get close to what Kobe will be looking for money-wise. The Clippers could get far enough under the cap to make an offer, but will Kobe come? They would be much better with Kobe in the backcourt, but without a point guard or a center, would they be a championship contender? Sign-and-trades are always possible, but the Lakers are in the driver's seat.


    Nash
    2. Steve Nash, G, Mavs (PO)
    The skinny: Nash likely will opt out, but chances are he will stay in Dallas. Nash is one of the few guys in the NBA who is actually underpaid at the moment. Surely, Mark Cuban will throw a lucrative long-term contract at him to keep him in Dallas. If that's not enough for Nash, the Suns and Clippers are in desperate need of a point guard, and both teams would be willing to throw the cash his way.

    3. Antoine Walker, F, Mavericks (PO)
    The skinny: After all the abuse and trade rumors, will Walker exercise his player option and look for a better situation? It depends on how deep Cuban's pockets are. He already has Dirk Nowitzki, Michael Finely and Antawn Jamison locked up to max-type contracts. With Nash also looking for a big deal, can Cuban afford both? If he can't, is Walker willing to take a pay cut to move on? It's hard to imagine the Jazz, Nuggets, Clippers or Spurs throwing max money at him. Teams would be interested in the $8-9 million range, but not at the $14 million rate he's going for.

    4. Rasheed Wallace, F, Blazers
    The skinny: It's hard to believe Wallace will be a Blazer next season. One, for the first time in awhile, it appears Paul Allen is serious about cutting some payroll. Two, for the first time in awhile, the Blazers are emphasizing character again. Neither factor bodes well for Wallace. The question is, where does he go? Not to a young team like Denver or Utah. Not to a veteran team worried about chemistry. And coming off a $17 million-a-year contract, just how much of a pay cut will he be willing to take? In other words, people will be interested, but at what price? Conventional wisdom says the Knicks, Rockets and Mavericks will be the big players this summer. But none of them has the cash to offer him anything more than the mid-level exception.


    Martin
    5. Kenyon Martin, F, Nets (R)
    The skinny: Martin is looking for a six-year, $90 million deal from the Nets. Team president Rod Thorn is understandably balking. The Nuggets will have interest and could offer him a lot of money and still have room, especially if Camby is gone, to go after their other favorite, Quentin Richardson.

    6. Mehmet Okur, C, Pistons (R)
    The skinny: There's a dearth of big men available, and a number of teams are going to show interest in Okur, starting with the Pistons. Team president Joe Dumars has been trying to clear cap space to make sure he can re-sign him. Right now Dumars is looking at roughly $6 million in room. Will that be enough? The Jazz, Nuggets, Suns and Clippers all like him and would be willing to offer more depending on what the top five free agents decide to do. Dumars is working the phones trying to get one more contract off the books. Okur will fall right in that $6-8 million range this summer. That's cutting it awfully close.

    7. Jamal Crawford, G, Bulls (R)
    The skinny: Crawford wants out of Chicago, and there are plenty of teams willing to take him. The Bulls' decision to move Crawford exclusively to the two dampens his value. Teams that believe Crawford could be a good point guard in the league are going to be the most interested. Look for the Clippers and Cavaliers to make the most noise. If the Cavs dump Jeff McInnis this summer, they should be able to make an offer for Crawford above the mid-level exception.

    8. Emanuel Ginobili, G, Spurs (R)
    The skinny: The Spurs want to keep him. But if they get wrapped up in the Kobe sweepstakes or get involved in a trade, Ginobili could be in play. The Jazz and Nuggets both love him and won't let him slip if he, for some reason, wiggles out of the Spurs' grasp.


    Dampier
    9. Erick Dampier, C, Warriors (PO)
    The skinny: Dampier opting out of his huge contract was inconceivable last summer, but he's having the type of season that may cause him to reconsider. There are plenty of teams that need a big man, and if the Jazz or Nuggets show some interest, it may be his best and only chance to get out of the bay.

    10. Quentin Richardson, G, Clippers (R)
    The skinny: The word on the street is the Nuggets love him. The speculation is met with a chuckle when posed directly to Nuggets brass. He does fit the system and seems like an upgrade ... but what's the price? The Clippers own his Bird rights. If they can't get Kobe, they'll want to keep him, and Denver GM Kiki Vandeweghe won't overpay.

    Best of the Rest

    Player Option: Marcus Camby, C, Nuggets; Latrell Sprewell, SG, T-Wolves; Gary Payton, G, Lakers; Karl Malone, F, Lakers; Kurt Thomas, F, Knicks; Stephen Jackson, G/F, Hawks; Jerome James, C, Sonics; Penny Hardaway, G, Knicks; Mark Blount, C, Celtics; Troy Hudson, G, T-Wolves; Zaur Pachulia, C, Magic.

    Unrestricted: Vlade Divac, C, Kings; Adonal Foyle, C, Warriors; Brent Barry, G, Sonics; Antonio McDyess, F, Suns; Ron Mercer, G, Spurs; Eric Williams, G/F, Celtics; Keon Clark, F, Jazz; Greg Ostertag, C, Jazz; Jon Barry, G, Nuggets; Rodney White, G/F, Nuggets; Slava Medvedenko, C, Lakers; Toni Kukoc, F, Bucks; Charlie Ward, G, Spurs; Tom Gugliotta, F, Suns; Trenton Hassell, G, T-Wolves.

    Restricted:: Stromile Swift, F, Grizzlies; Carlos Arroyo, PG, Jazz; Mo Peterson, F, Raptors; Darius Miles, F, Cavs; DeShawn Stevenson, G, Jazz; Gordan Giricek, G/F, Magic; Zeljko Rebraca, C, Pistons; Jake Tsakalidis, C, Suns; Marcus Fizer, F, Bulls; Chris Mihm, PF, Celtics; Joel Przybilla, C, Bucks; Keyon Dooling, G, Clippers; Etan Thomas, F, Wizards; Courtney Alexander, G, Hornets; Hedo Turkoglu, G/F, Spurs.

  • #2
    Re: 1/27/04 "Is Kobe the prize of 2004?"

    Magic ready to swap Howard for Olowokandi?

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Juwan Howard
    Magic

    T-Wolves
    Cavaliers
    Raptors
    Sonics
    Nuggets
    Pistons

    Jan. 26 - GM John Gabriel has been shopping Howard, along with swingman Gordan Giricek, since mid December. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Magic may be interested in swapping Howard for T-Wolves center Michael Olowokandi.

    The Chicago Tribune reported that Jalen Rose has been pushing the Raptors to make a trade for Howard. The Cavs, Sonics, Nuggets and Pistons have also reportedly shown interest.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Rasheed Wallace
    Blazers

    Mavericks
    Knicks
    Hawks
    Cavs
    Rockets
    Nets

    Jan. 26 - The latest 'Sheed rumor over the weekend, courtesy of the Newark Star-Ledger, involved a three-team trade that would have sent Wallace to Atlanta, Shareef Abdur-Rahim to New York and Keith Van Horn to Portland. However, talks reportedly broke down because the Blazers insisted Kurt Thomas also needed to be part of the deal. The Knicks still appear to be the team most interested in Wallace, with the Cavs, Rockets and Nets also keeping tabs on him.

    Donnie Nelson and Blazers GM John Nash met last week to discuss a trade that would send Wallace to Dallas for Antawn Jamison and Tariq Abdul-Wahad. The meeting lasted about 20 minutes and ended without a deal. Nelson told the Dallas Morning News that the talks with the Blazers are "dead" and "it never really was alive." ESPN.com's Marc Stein reported this weekend that owner Paul Allen decided he wanted to keep Wallace for now. Does that mean that 'Sheed is officially off the trading block?

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Zydrunas Ilgauskas
    Cavs
    Knicks
    Mavericks
    Blazers

    Jan. 26 - Is Zydrunas off the block? With so many teams in need of a big man, Ilgauskas has been a pretty hot commodity. The Mavs (for Antawn Jamison), Knicks (for Keith Van Horn and Frank Williams) and Blazers (for Rasheed Wallace) have all tried to pry Ilgauskas away, but so far GM Jim Paxson isn't biting.

    Now comes word from the Akron Beacon Journal on Sunday that Ilgauskas is off the block and will remain with the team for the rest of the season.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Melvin Ely
    Clippers
    Bulls

    Jan. 26 - The O.C. Register reported Friday the Clippers were shopping little-used power forward Melvin Ely, who's mired on the bench behind Elton Brand, Chris Wilcox, Chris Kaman and Peja Drobjnak. "It's hard to get all the minutes around at that position," coach Mike Dunleavy said. "We have Brand, we have Kaman, Wilcox and Drobnjak. On a given night, you're only going to play three, maybe four guys."

    The Chicago Tribune reported Monday the Bulls might be interested in an Ely-for-Marcus Fizer swap. Fizer is in the last year of his contract, which would allow the Clippers to get further under the cap this summer to make a run at Kobe Bryant.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Eddy Curry
    Bulls
    Mavs
    Sonics
    Blazers

    Jan. 21 - On Tuesday Insider first reported that Bulls GM John Paxson had recently dangled Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler in trade discussions. While sources claimed that Paxson was in no way giving the Baby Bulls away, the fact that the two were no longer untouchable was significant. Paxson essentially confirmed the story in Wednesday's editions of the Chicago Sun-Times. "I played with one guy who was untouchable or untradeable," Paxson said of Michael Jordan. "There are maybe a handful of guys in the league right now who fit in that category. The fact we're 12-29 answers whether any of our guys are untouchable."

    While Paxson said he's not inclined to deal Curry or Chandler, he's got to start looking at the opportunities. "I'm disappointed, and I know our fans are disappointed," Paxson said. "But I can't afford to panic. When you look at our two big, young kids, it's hard to make an argument to give up on them. They're still in their infancy in this league. . . I'm not panicking. But I'm not going to be super-cautious, either. You just have to believe that what you do will significantly help your team."

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Keith Van Horn
    Knicks
    Blazers?
    Cavs?

    Jan. 20 - It sure sounds like Keith Van Horn's days in New York are numbered. Isiah Thomas keeps talking about landing an athletic forward to run with Stephon Marbury -- a not so subtle dig at Van Horn. The question is whether Thomas can get someone to take on the last two years, and $30 million of Van Horn's contract. Thomas has tried to convince Portland and Cleveland to take him, to no avail. Is there another team out there that wants Van Horn? Conventional wisdom says no.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Jamal Crawford
    Bulls
    Knicks

    Jan. 20 - The Chicago Sun-Times reported Sunday that Bulls GM John Paxson and Knicks president Isiah Thomas had spoken about a Crawford-to-the-Knicks trade. According to the New York Daily News, the Knicks offered Shandon Anderson and Frank Williams for Crawford and Eddie Robinson. While the Bulls are exploring trade options for Crawford, it's unlikely that they'll pull the trigger on the Knicks trade.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Eric Snow
    Sixers
    ???

    Jan. 20 - The Sixers quietly have been exploring a Snow trade for the last few weeks, but they aren't finding any takers. While a number of teams love him as a player, the five years remaining on his contract are a killer.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Ron Mercer
    Spurs
    Pistons

    Jan. 20 - The Spurs have been trying to move Mercer for about a month. The Pistons have been trying to get him from San Antonio, but don't have anything the Spurs want in return. The two teams have tried to find a third team to make something happen, but so far, nothing has worked out.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Antawn Jamison
    Mavericks
    Blazers
    Cavaliers

    Jan. 19 - He's safe for now. Trade talks with the Blazers broke off over the weekend, meaning Jamison can breathe a little easier for now. The Cavs also have shown some interest, and the Mavs have pursued Zydrunas Ilgauskas in the past, but Mavs owner Mark Cuban continues to claim he's happy with the team and isn't inclined to make a trade.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Shareef Abdur-Rahim
    Hawks
    Cavs
    Blazers
    Sonics
    Jazz
    Warriors?

    Jan. 19 - The interest in Abdur-Rahim around the league is enormous. The Akron Beacon Journal reported Sunday that Abdur-Rahim wants out and the Cavs wouldn't mind taking him off the Hawks' hands. The New York Post reported the Blazers are trying to send Rasheed Wallace to Atlanta for Abdur-Rahim and Chris Crawford.

    The question is whether the Hawks actually will trade him. Don't count on it, unless two things happen. One, the sale of the team finally is approved by the league sometime in January. And two, the Hawks find takers for Theo Ratliff and Jason Terry. If they can get those guys off the books, trading Abdur-Rahim gives them lots of cap flexibility.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Tracy McGrady
    Magic

    Blazers Jan. 15 - The Orlando Sentinel reports the Blazers called the Magic about a McGrady-for-Rasheed Wallace swap. GM John Gabriel denied McGrady was on the block. McGrady's response to the rumor? "I don't believe any of that, but I did hear the Rasheed rumor," McGrady said. "I think there would be a lot of disappointed Orlando fans if that happened." No kidding.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Marcus Camby
    Nuggets
    Knicks

    Jan. 15 - Isiah Thomas called Nuggets GM Kiki Vandeweghe over the weekend about Camby's availability but reportedly was shut down. The Nuggets are leaning toward keeping Camby around, given their success in the West this year. That doesn't mean Camby isn't available at the right price, but the Knicks have nothing the Nuggets really want.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Jason Terry
    Hawks
    Blazers?
    Pacers?

    Jan. 15 - Terry has been pushing Hawks management to make a trade, even if he has to be included in it. Plenty of teams are interested, but Terry is a base-year compensation player, making a one-for-one swap virtually impossible. Unless he's paired up with someone like Theo Ratliff or Shareef Abdur-Rahim in a blockbuster-type trade, Terry's going to have to ride out the storm in Atlanta.

    WHO
    INTERESTED
    THE SKINNY

    Theo Ratliff
    Hawks
    Blazers
    Grizzlies
    Bucks?
    Celtics?

    Jan. 15 - Ratliff's ongoing feud with coach Terry Stotts has put him in the crosshairs. There's talk the Blazers want Ratliff and would be willing to swap Rasheed Wallace for him if the Hawks also included Terry. Terry is a base-year player, which makes that trade more difficult, but it is doable with the right add-ons.

    The Grizzlies also have interest in Ratliff, but they're running out of ammo to get him. A combo of Stromile Swift, Jake Tsakalidis and Shane Battier might be enough, but is the injury-prone Ratliff really worth that price?

    Comment

    Working...
    X