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

05-28-04

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

  • 05-28-04

    You'd think if ya teach a man to fish...
    ___


    By Chad Ford
    Friday, May 28, 2004

    Insider's first mock draft appeared late Wednesday night, and by 8 a.m. Thursday I already had 15 messages on my cell. By the time I shut off my phone at 1:30 a.m. Friday, the number had swelled to around 50 calls.

    Many of them came from agents protesting where we projected a client or two on the mock draft. It's safe to say every agent believes his client is a lottery pick. I received guarantees on about 30 players that they'd be in the lottery on draft night. I didn't have the heart to tell them only 14 players actually can be selected there.

    The feedback from NBA scouts and GMs is much more helpful. As I wrote Thursday, the draft boards of NBA teams are wildly different this year. Players are all over the board, making it difficult, even impossible, to produce a mock draft that means much. Besides, mocks done this far from draft day are essentially meaningless, anyway. Over the next few weeks things should come into better focus as two important events go down.

    Next week almost every team in the league will be in Treviso, Italy, for Reebok's Eurocamp. The camp is filled with some big-time draft talent, including Pavel Podkolzine, Martynas Andriuskevicius, Mile Ilic, Johan Petro, Roko Leni Ukic and Drago Pasalic ... all of whom are in this year's draft. It's also filled with a number of top prospects for next year, including Nemanja Aleksandrov, Rudy Fernandez, Marko Lekic, Vladimir Veremeenko and Manuchar Markoishvili among others. From there, teams should get a much better read on some of the interesting big men in the draft. Insider will be in Treviso for the week to report on the camp.

    The following week is the Chicago pre-draft camp. Every year several bubble-type prospects emerge from there and plant themselves firmly in the first round. Others disappear completely. Just as important, the top players in the draft go through the combine and measurements, ending all the silly speculation on how tall guys really are (no, Emeka Okafor is not 6-7).

    Until then, however, here's a consensus of whose draft stock we may have rated a little too low and whose we have rated a little too high at this point. The mock draft will be updated accordingly next week.

    Stock Watch

    Deng, Childress or Iguodala to the Bulls? Luol Deng's decision to only work out, alone, at the Duke campus could really haunt him if he decides to stay in the draft. Teams want to see how he stacks up against several of the other top prospects in the draft. Right now Deng is refusing to play along. It's not an uncommon practice for a player ranked this high to play this game, but it's frustrating to NBA teams.

    Meanwhile both Andre Iguodala and Josh Childress have been impressing people to the point several scouts now claim they have both players ranked ahead of Deng on their boards. What gives?

    The advantage Iguodala and Childress have over Deng is athleticism and experience. Childress has played three years for Stanford and really had a breakthrough season there. Several scouts who have seen him work out claim he looked awesome. We've moved him up to the No. 4 pick with Charlotte, but it's not out of the question the Bulls could decide Childress, not Deng, makes the most sense at No. 3.

    Don't count out Iguodala at No. 3, either. While he's more of a two than a three, his defense, athleticism, passing, ball-handling ability and NBA body are off the charts. The big question has been his shot. However, several individuals who have seen him work out lately claim his outside shot is looking very good. He's still not going to be a sharpshooter from beyond the arc, but neither was Dwyane Wade.

    Iguodala, like Wade, has the quickness and strength to take guys to the rack. While some scouts worry his offense may be a little lacking, the other intangibles could convince the Bulls to take a shot on the Springfield, Ill., native. If the Bulls don't take him, the Bobcats and Hawks might.

    Where does that leave Deng? Still not in bad shape. The Bobcats have him ranked very high and would love for him to fall to No. 4. It doesn't mean they'd take him, but they'd like the option. The Bulls also could go with Deng. His maturity, leadership, freakish wingspan and sound fundamentals make him a safe choice. While scouts aren't convinced Deng will be a superstar in the league, most feel he has a great chance to be a good player. Of the three, he may be the safest pick, but without the upside of the other two.

    Jackson, Snyder rising: It's probably not a surprise to keep hearing that players with more college experience are suddenly on the rise. Once players like Oregon's Luke Jackson, Nevada's Kirk Snyder, Xavier's Romain Sato and, to a lesser extent, Jameer Nelson of Saint Joseph's, started getting into workouts against high school players and less-experienced internationals and college underclassmen, their value has become evident.

    Jackson has been especially impressive in workouts, according to several scouts who have had him in their gym. He's shot the ball extremely well and has tested as a better athlete than many people had expected. The comparisons to Mike Miller are becoming more prominent every day, and that can only do good things for Jackson. He worked out for New Jersey on Wednesday to rave reviews and put on a show for the Cavs on Friday. He also had a solid workout along with Snyder in Atlanta on Tuesday.

    Right now we have Jackson going No. 22 to the Nets. They could really use him. But it's not out of the question he could sneak all the way into the lottery by the end of the process. Jackson is one of the few players in the draft who can play right now, and that should make things interesting for teams like Cleveland (No. 10), Portland (No. 13), Utah (No. 14, 16, 21), Atlanta (No. 17), New Orleans (No. 18), Denver (No. 20) and New Jersey. All those teams want and need a player who can produce at his position. If Deng, Childress and Iguodala are all off the board, Jackson may be the choice.

    Snyder has been equally impressive in workouts, according to scouts. Snyder's strength, athleticism, versatility and toughness have stood out in workouts. From what we hear, he can outplay just about anyone one-on-one. The consistency of his perimeter shot is the only thing that has scouts a little concerned. Snyder is not a bad shooter, but he can be wildly inconsistent with his jump shot. Right now we have him going No. 20 to the Nuggets. He has a chance to move up a little more in the first round, but unlike Jackson, the chances of him rising into the lottery are pretty slim.

    Sato's been wowing teams in workouts lately and has some real draft buzz. Prospects like him don't come along too often. He's strong, athletic, mature, plays stifling defense, can rebound and has a nice jump shot. Comparisons on him range from Quentin Richardson offensively to Ron Artest or Mickael Pietrus defensively. If he impresses teams at the Chicago pre-draft camp, don't be surprised if he sneaks into the latter part of the first round. With so few experienced players in the draft, Sato should be able to take advantage if he keeps playing this way.

    Donta Smith a first-round sleeper: The mock draft can only go 29 players deep this year, because Minnesota forfeited its pick as part of the Joe Smith fiasco. Had it gone a full 30 picks, Smith would have been the last guy in the first round. By the end of the process, he could be going much higher. Smith has been working out in Chicago for several weeks, and scouts who have seen him there are claiming he looks amazing. That mirrors the reports of several scouts who scouted him heavily in JUCO this year.

    Smith has gotten a bad rap from Rick Pitino for deciding to declare for the draft. But the truth is Pitino was absolutely in love with him before he defected. Smith reminded Pitino, and many other people, of Ron Artest. He's a big-time athlete and defender who is tough as nails. Offensively, he's way ahead of where Artest was when he declared. He's a good shooter from the perimeter and can put the ball on the floor and get to the basket. He also uses his strength to post players up. Smith's most impressive attribute is his ball-handling and passing. Several scouts believe he has the ability to be a point forward in the pros. He already has an NBA body and has a 7-foot-1 wingspan.

    A relative lack of experience and a tattered legacy for junior college kids who go straight to the pros is keeping his stock down at the moment. Remember, Kedrick Brown went No. 11 and Qyntel Woods went No. 21. On the basketball side of things, scouts claim that while he's a very good athlete, he doesn't have bouncy vertical.

    He's under the radar right now, but NBA scouts know about him and like him -- a lot. He's drawing rave reviews at all of his workouts and has a pretty hefty schedule up to the draft. The Kings, especially, have been keeping a close eye on him all year and could nab him at the end of the first round.

    What about Ramos? There isn't a player on the draft board who is more difficult to project right now than Puerto Rico's Peter John Ramos. For the past two months he has been dominating the Puerto Rican league and putting on an offensive show for NBA scouts and GMs who have made the trip. All of them have walked away impressed with the 7-foot-3, 280-pound 18-year-old. One GM told Insider he believes Ramos will be a top-10 pick on draft night.

    Why then, is he projected at No. 28 in Insider's mock draft? A couple of reasons: One, every team I talked to likes Ramos, but most of them don't love him. After seeing what happened to Maciej Lampe last season, forgive us for being a bit wary. Lampe was told by a number of teams in the 5 to 10 range in the draft that he was one of the top two or three guys they were considering. Lots of teams really liked him. No one, however, loved him. He ended up slipping all the way out of the first round on draft night due to a set of bizarre circumstances. A guy like Ramos, who just came onto the scene two months ago for many teams, seems ripe for the same type of situation.

    Also, every team I talked to has real concerns about attitude and off-court issues. Ramos' agent, Andrew Vye, insists there is nothing to be concerned about. Any problems Ramos had were in the past, and at just 18 years of age, he certainly has the potential to mature. Some have questioned his work ethic, but coach Billy Bayno, who has worked him out in Puerto Rico the past few weeks, claims Ramos has a phenomenal work ethic and is a quick learner.

    However, the perception is there -- especially among scouts who have been tracking Ramos longer. Those things tend to weigh heavily on draft night. If Ramos slips out of the lottery, it's conceivable all the teams from 15 down to the Spurs at 28 could pass on him. They all have other, pressing needs that this draft could fill, and the few teams in the group that do need a big man may opt for a more experienced guy who can help them win games now. In short, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ramos ended up a lottery pick on draft night. But the consensus among the scouts I've talked to is that the second half of the first round is much more plausible.

    Varejao, Khryapa rising? Going with the old-school theme today, several 22-year-old international players also are playing to pretty positive reviews right now. Brazilian big man Anderson Varejao arrived in Atlanta this week to begin workouts with NBA teams. Already, several are beginning to remember why they fell in love with him two years ago when he came over to work out. A lackluster two years coming off the bench at F.C. Barcelona have hurt his stock, but as a player, he's still pretty attractive.

    Varejao's length, athleticism, toughness and energy around the basket are just the type of qualities veteran teams late in the first round are looking for. The Spurs have liked him for years. Same with the Nuggets and Pistons. He's a little bit of an "eye of the beholder" type player, because he's pretty raw offensively, but, at the end of the day he seems like the type of player who'd have a very good shot at the late first round. We'll follow his workouts closely and get back to you on how he's doing.

    Russian forward Viktor Khryapa is another guy worth keeping tabs on. He'll begin working out with NBA teams soon, and there are several scouts (a minority however) who actually prefer him to his teammate Sergei Monya. Teams to watch on Khryapa include Boston, New Jersey and the Lakers.

    Draft Rumors

    Promises, Promises It seems like it's way too early to begin to talk about promises and the draft. We're still a month away, and most teams are just now beginning individual workouts. But the speculation continues to grow that several high school and international players already have been locked up.

    Two teams notorious for giving promises -- the Celtics and Suns -- already are being accused of making such deals. Both teams deny it, but there are strong indications the Celtics have gotten very close with three prospects -- Peja Samardziski, Robert Swift and Dorell Wright. The Suns have been linked to Martynas Andriuskevicius for weeks, though there may be less truth to that one. It's tough to see how they could make a promise to a kid before the lottery had taken place. Now that the team knows it's drafting No. 7? It's possible they could make the call now.

    There's been speculation for weeks that Russia's Sergei Monya was already locked up. Monya is not working out for any teams, causing whispers of "promise" around the league. Where might he go? The Jazz struck gold once in Russia, so why not try it again? Utah is one of many teams that really likes Monya. He's a great fit. He's tough, athletic and is an emerging shooter. He also happens to represented by the same agent, Marc Fleisher, who has Andrei Kirilenko and Gordan Giricek as clients. I'm not saying Utah has promised anyone anything, but it would sure make sense. Most likely Monya will have to play one more season in Russia before heading to the NBA, giving the Jazz time to sort out their logjams at the two and three.

    There also has been speculation for weeks that Sebastian Telfair had been locked up. Why else would adidas give him that much money? There's a reason Insider put Telfair at No. 23 to the Blazers on Wednesday. They fell in love with him at a tournament in California and have been high on him ever since. It's pretty unlikely they'd use pick No. 13 on him, but No. 23 sounds just about right.

    If that isn't enough to keep you interested, Insider also has learned that several agents are employing a new strategy this year -- asking for promises in the second round. It's not as crazy as it seems. What agents are searching for is guaranteed deals. If a team is willing to lock up a player for three years (which is allowable under the CBA), both sides win. The team gets the player's Bird Rights, protecting them from losing the player in free agency if he develops quickly. The player, essentially, gets the same guarantee as a first-round pick. Several agents are telling teams they will keep their clients in the draft if they get a second-round guarantee that's a good fit. Theoretically, you could see several interesting international players like Ha Seung Jin or Damir Omerhodzic going this route. It's a better alternative than returning to Europe, and it gives bad teams another great shot at locking up another talented young kid.

    Trade Talk There's still a very good possibility the Bulls will at least consider trading their No. 3 pick along with one of the Baby Bulls for a more-seasoned veteran. Several interesting possibilities could exist.

    One has the Bulls working out something with the Jazz, who would send their No. 16 pick and Matt Harpring to Chicago for the Bulls' No. 3 pick and Jerome Williams. That would give the Bulls the veteran small forward they've coveted in the past and allow them to move Williams' bad contract off the books.

    Another, courtesy Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune, has them packaging Eddy Curry and the No. 3 pick to Memphis (for Pau Gasol and Shane Battier). Smith also suggests the Sonics would be interested in the No. 3, Curry and Antonio Davis in return for Ray Allen and the No. 12 pick.

    I think that's a lot for Memphis to give up, but I could see the Sonics being interested. Allen hasn't exactly gotten along with everyone in Seattle, and the Sonics are desperate for a big man. They get two in the package and could replace Allen with a player they draft at No. 3. I also could see the Bulls sending the No. 3, Curry and Jerome Williams to Seattle for Rashard Lewis, Vladimir Radmanovic, Ronald Murray and the No. 12 pick. The Sonics could replace Lewis easier with the No. 3 pick. Luol Deng and Josh Childress both would be interesting candidates there.

    The only issue for the Bulls is who ultimately replaces Curry in the middle? There won't be a player with his upside at No. 12. I still believe they're much better off trying to move Tyson Chandler, but, admittedly, he doesn't have the trade value Curry does.
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

  • #2
    Re: 05-28-04

    Sato's been wowing teams in workouts and has some real draft buzz. Prospects like him don't come along too often. He's strong, athletic, mature, plays stifling defense, can rebound and has a nice jump shot. Comparisons range from Quentin Richardson offensively to Ron Artest or Mickael Pietrus defensively. If he impresses teams at the Chicago camp, don't be surprised if he sneaks into the latter part of the first round. With so few experienced players in the draft, Sato should be able to take advantage.


    Really think we should take Sato if he's there when we pick.
    Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 05-28-04

      Sato's been wowing teams in workouts and has some real draft buzz. Prospects like him don't come along too often. He's strong, athletic, mature, plays stifling defense, can rebound and has a nice jump shot. Comparisons range from Quentin Richardson offensively to Ron Artest or Mickael Pietrus defensively. If he impresses teams at the Chicago camp, don't be surprised if he sneaks into the latter part of the first round. With so few experienced players in the draft, Sato should be able to take advantage.


      Really think we should take Sato if he's there when we pick.
      Wow. If that description of him is CLOSE to accurate, I REALLY hope we take him if we have the opportunity. Yeesh!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 05-28-04

        I don't think he's quite the defensive demon that they make him out to be but I still like the guy. His defense may look really good compared to some of the guys he's worked out against, I dunno.
        Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

        Comment

        Working...
        X