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

Sheridan talks superstar trades

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

  • Sheridan talks superstar trades

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...3dNBAHeadlines
    High-priced superstars could be on the move
    By Chris Sheridan
    ESPN.com
    (Archive)
    Updated: January 17, 2008
    Comment
    Email
    The NBA executives we've spoken to are nearly unanimous in their belief that Pau Gasol of the Memphis Grizzlies is the most likely high-profile player to be dealt before next month's NBA trading deadline. They cautioned, however, that the unsettled situation surrounding the New York Knicks could change the league's entire landscape in the next five weeks.

    Seems the fans at Madison Square Garden aren't the only ones chanting "Fire Isiah." Executives from a handful of teams around the NBA are voicing similar sentiments following nearly a month of all talk and no action emanating from Manhattan.

    ESPN.COM'S TRADE MACHINE
    It's your turn to be GM. Propose a deal using ESPN.com's Trade Machine

    Sources told ESPN.com that the New York Knicks have been one of the more active teams in trade discussions around the NBA. But team president and head coach Isiah Thomas has quashed numerous proposals put together by his top assistant, Glen Grunwald, mainly because of Thomas' reluctance to part with the two players other teams ask for the most, Jamal Crawford and David Lee.

    One proposed deal would have sent Crawford and a cap filler (Malik Rose and/or Jerome James) to the New Jersey Nets for Vince Carter. Another would have sent Crawford and others to the Cleveland Cavaliers for a package built around Larry Hughes. A third deal, which was squashed by the Bucks, would have sent Zach Randolph to Milwaukee.

    The feeling around the NBA, from discussions with front office executives, agents, scouts and coaches, is that the uncertainty surrounding Thomas' job status -- along with possible resistance from ownership -- is keeping the Knicks from pulling the trigger on any trades. But should owner James Dolan decide to fire Thomas and make Grunwald the new (and most likely temporary) architect of the roster, the breakup of the team would commence almost immediately, and there would then be a ripple effect that would impact other trade discussions around the league.

    If Gasol is dealt, it would mark the 10th time in the past season and a half that a superstar player -- or at least a player making superstar money -- had switched teams via a trade. The legit superstars who were traded were Allen Iverson, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, and the paid-like-superstar players (currently earning at least $10 million) were Rashard Lewis, Randolph, Jason Richardson, Theo Ratliff, Wally Szczerbiak and Steve Francis.

    With many other players like that scattered throughout the league, and rumors running hot, it's time to take a close, educated look at the trade prospects -- or, in some cases, the lack thereof -- for a wide cross-section of both the league's best and its highest-paid players:



    Kobe Bryant, Lakers
    If he hadn't vetoed every trade proposal that would have sent Luol Deng to the Lakers, he'd already be playing in Chicago -- and Scott Skiles would probably still have a job. But with the Lakers now sitting atop the Western Conference and Bryant saying they are a "championship caliber" team with a healthy Andrew Bynum, the landscape has changed considerably. Still, until Bryant says he no longer desires a trade -- and he has declined myriad opportunities to do so -- the issue will remain open.

    Bryant's main leverage at this point, if he wants out, would be to tell the Lakers that if they don't trade him -- either by the deadline or before the start of next season -- he will opt out of his contract in the summer of 2009. He could then refuse to agree to any sign-and-trade deals, which would leave the Lakers getting nothing for him in return.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Shaquille O'Neal, Heat
    Miami coach Pat Riley used the word "mandate" Tuesday when he said ownership wants him to get below the luxury tax threshold of $67.875 million, which would mean he needs to trim about $6 million off his payroll by Feb. 21.

    Riley said he has no plans to trade O'Neal, who makes $20 million (this season and two more seasons). But he also threw the thought out there that a few teams might believe that Shaq is just the player to make them title contenders.

    It is unclear whether O'Neal would welcome a trade, but keep in mind that he is going through a divorce and might embrace a move to a new city. With the Heat, losers of 11 straight, in last place in the East, we could envision O'Neal's being happier in Dallas (which could get him by using Keith Van Horn in a sign-and-trade) or East Rutherford, N.J., which is close to his Newark roots.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Jason Kidd, Nets
    There is no question management was furious with him for his purported one-day strike last month when he skipped a game against New York with what he called a "migraine headache." But emotions have cooled down and the team has played better in the four weeks since.

    Kidd still wants the Nets to give him a contract extension and bring in an athletic power forward. If neither happens by Feb. 21, we'll be awaiting his next tantrum.

    An agent for one of Kidd's teammates believes the Nets would trade Kidd if they could get a point guard and a power forward back.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Pau Gasol, Grizzlies
    When the Bulls wanted him last year, their refusal to include Luol Deng killed the deal. If that line of thinking has changed in Chicago, the Bulls can get him with some combination of Deng, Tyrus Thomas and/or Joakim Noah (and P.J. Brown in a sign-and-trade to make the salaries match). A source close to Gasol said the Cleveland Cavaliers were also trying to obtain him, but the Cavs' big man who interests them most, Anderson Varejao, cannot be traded until the summer. (NBA rules state a player cannot be traded for three months after he signs a contract, and Varejao was signed on Dec. 4, with the trade deadline looming on Feb. 21.)



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Tracy McGrady, Rockets
    Tough one to figure here. The Rockets' brain trust insists it wants to see how McGrady and Yao Ming perform together under Rick Adelman in the playoffs at least once before making any decision on whether to move T-Mac.

    But folks on other teams insist the Rockets would move McGrady in a heartbeat to get out from under the $63 million he'll make over the next three seasons. Only time will tell.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Gilbert Arenas, Wizards
    The Wizards have been playing well with Arenas on the sidelines recently, leading some to speculate that Washington might actually be better off without him. A Wizards source says that notion is absolute nonsense. The source said the team is hell-bent on locking him up long-term, after Arenas opts out of his contract and becomes an unrestricted free agent this summer.

    A bigger issue for the Wizards will be convincing Antawn Jamison, also an upcoming unrestricted free agent, to re-sign with them for a starting salary that will be less than what he is making now ($16.3M).



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Jermaine O'Neal, Pacers
    Those close to the Pacers' big man, who apparently aggravated a knee injury Wednesday night, said he was emotionally drained at the end of the summer. After hearing his name bandied about in trade talks with the Lakers and Nets, O'Neal turned full circle at the start of this season and made up his mind to stay completely focused on the season ahead.

    But Pacers president Larry Bird has been noncommittal as to whether he's still open to the idea of trading O'Neal, so stay tuned.

    If the Pacers were open to giving the Grizzlies cap relief by taking on Brian Cardinal's contract (two more years and $13 million owed), they might make the best trading partner for Memphis in a Gasol-O'Neal deal.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Mike Bibby, Kings
    If the Cavs want him, they're going to have to take back Kenny Thomas' contract as well -- something Cleveland insiders have said is a deal-breaker. But the Cavs and Kings have had at least three sets of trade discussions centered around Bibby in the past year, including three days of intense discussions immediately prior to last season's deadline.

    Sacramento is in no hurry; the franchise's decision-makers want to see how the team performs over the next month now that everyone except Shareef Abdur-Rahim is finally healthy. As of now, odds are the Cavs end up with a different point guard by the time the deadline passes, anyone from Tyronn Lue to Marcus Banks to Earl Watson.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    Ron Artest, Kings
    He'd be wearing a Knicks uniform by now if Isiah Thomas had been willing to trade Nate Robinson and Renaldo Balkman (though you should not believe for a second Thomas' statement from last week that everyone on his team is untouchable).

    Artest can opt out of his contract at the end of this season, and he has said he would sign with New York for the midlevel exception. But Artest will say anything, and he's also said he wants to stay in Sacto for the rest of his career.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Shawn Marion, Suns
    With all the focus on a possible Kobe Bryant trade in October, it almost flew under the radar when Marion told the Suns he wanted out. But after Phoenix's talks with Utah -- in a potential deal of Marion for Andrei Kirilenko -- fizzled out, the Suns and Marion worked out some of their differences and are now peacefully co-existing.

    The issue is all but certain to resurface over the summer. Marion is going to want a contract extension from any team that acquires him, and it's debatable whether he's worth the kind of money he's making ($16.4 million and $17.8 million this season and next).



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Amare Stoudemire, Suns
    The Suns were willing to move him over the summer when they thought they could get Garnett, and then his name pretty much dropped out of the rumor mill. But one source close to the team told ESPN.com that the Suns very quietly revisited the idea of moving Stoudemire early in December, which would lead one to believe they'll at least be open to fielding offers as the deadline nears.

    Just a thought, but doesn't Stoudemire and Atlanta's No. 1 pick, which the Suns own from a prior trade, for Gasol and Hakim Warrick make some sense for both teams? If not that one, what about Stoudemire for Rasheed Wallace?



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Richard Jefferson, Nets
    There were serious three-team trade discussions among the Nets, Lakers and Bobcats last June that would have sent Lamar Odom to New Jersey, but the Bobcats pulled out because they liked the Richardson deal better.

    Jefferson is now having the best season of his career, so his trade value has never been higher. With the Nets desperate for a power forward and more inclined to keep Kidd than trade him, it makes sense that Jefferson -- whose value has eclipsed that of Carter in the estimation of many teams -- would be the key piece in any Nets trade.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Andrei Kirilenko, Jazz
    By all accounts, Jerry Sloan has followed through on his vow to go easier on Kirilenko this season, and things are now copacetic between the two.

    Mehmet Okur was the player the Jazz were down on until he started returning to form a couple weeks ago. Okur is much more tradable than Kirilenko, with a salary of $8.5M this season and next and $9M in 2009-10.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Wally Szczerbiak, SuperSonics
    He makes $12 million this season and $13 million next season, and he can still shoot it. If the Sonics could get him off their cap along with Earl Watson (two more years at $6.2M and $6.6M) in one fell swoop, they'd likely do it if they could get back expiring contracts and some kind of sweetener. Jason Williams, Dorell Wright and Ricky Davis for Wally and Watson is said to be in the works, by the way. And Miami could sweeten it with one or all of the three second-round picks it has in the upcoming draft (its own, Philadelphia's and Indiana's).



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Samuel Dalembert, 76ers
    All the speculation surrounding Philadelphia's next trade has centered around Andre Miller -- though we hear that Gordan Giricek will actually be the next player the Sixers move. But if Philadelphia is going to make a hard run at Elton Brand on the free-agent market this coming summer (assuming he opts out of his contract), the Sixers will need to clear Dalembert's $10.25 salary for next season off their books. Dalembert, though, also has a 7.5 percent trade kicker, which makes him very tough to move.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Theo Ratliff, Timberwolves
    He makes the list not because of his talent, but because of his salary, $11.6 million, which comes off the books after this season.

    Also, we expect him to take a buyout in late February and then sign with a team needing extra size -- perhaps Boston or Phoenix -- for the postseason.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Ben Wallace, Bulls
    We could put anybody from the Bulls on this list, but Big Ben is the only one of them making beaucoup bucks. Also, his salary drops from $15.5M this year to $14.5M and then $14M over the next two seasons.

    Again, just a thought: But wouldn't Wallace for Zach Randolph make sense for two teams that are more or less due to make another deal with each other?


    Chris Sheridan covers the NBA for ESPN Insider. To e-mail Chris, click here.
    Last edited by indygeezer; 01-17-2008, 04:37 PM.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

  • #2
    Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

    If we could somehow get Gasol for O'Neal then that's a feat at this point.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      If we could somehow get Gasol for O'Neal then that's a feat at this point.
      Memphis is a rebuilding team. They're not about to trade Gasol for a guy who is somewhat at the same level as him but is older with more mileage on his body.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

        I really hate it when "experts" make their opinions based on events that have well since rectified themselves.

        Kobe's going nowhere. He never really wanted to leave L.A., he was proven wrong about Bynum, and they're winning a lot of ballgames. He doesn't want out anymore, and the Lakers don't want to move him.

        Shaq is going nowhere because nobody wants his massive contract.

        And I'd be hard-pressed to watch Brian Cardinal in a Pacers uniform. I absolutely HATED him at Purdue. He certainly flops with the best of 'em.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

          Originally posted by d_c View Post
          Memphis is a rebuilding team. They're not about to trade Gasol for a guy who is somewhat at the same level as him but is older with more mileage on his body.
          And that's why it would be a feat.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

            a Gasol-O'Neal deal ? Never seen that one coming, although is doubtful. Id welcome it.
            If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
            [/center]
            @thatguyjoe84

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

              Why would either team do a swap of Jermaine for Pau? Especially the Pacers if we had to take back Brian Cardinal.

              Pau is no better than Jermaine. I'd rather get more salary relief, picks, etc then take Pau. Pau is good but really we just keep going in the same ciricle with him as we are with Jermaine.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                Originally posted by rommie View Post
                Why would either team do a swap of Jermaine for Pau? Especially the Pacers if we had to take back Brian Cardinal.

                Pau is no better than Jermaine. I'd rather get more salary relief, picks, etc then take Pau. Pau is good but really we just keep going in the same ciricle with him as we are with Jermaine.
                QFT. I've had enough of lateral moves.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                  because we totally have the cap-space to just absorb more contracts...
                  This is the darkest timeline.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                    Maybe time to talk to the Nets again?

                    JO for Jefferson and Collins?

                    Any chance they'd include Krstic (given his injury and off year)? What if we include another player, like Foster?
                    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                      At leas Pau should be younger/healthier than JO..... right?

                      Is it a lateral move? Maybe, but if what I'm asking above is true then I don't think so. Plus just having someone not named Jermaine O'Neal being our best player right now might do some good.

                      As for New Jersey wanting a PG and a PF, we've got some of those for you. If they'd take Tins/JO for Kidd I certainly wouldn't mind; his age be damned. He's no saint either, though.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                        Originally posted by Mal View Post
                        At leas Pau should be younger/healthier than JO..... right?

                        Is it a lateral move? Maybe, but if what I'm asking above is true then I don't think so. Plus just having someone not named Jermaine O'Neal being our best player right now might do some good.

                        As for New Jersey wanting a PG and a PF, we've got some of those for you. If they'd take Tins/JO for Kidd I certainly wouldn't mind; his age be damned. He's no saint either, though.
                        But we'd also likely have to take Brian Cardinal. Which I have a lot of problems with.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                          What about JO and Tinsley to NJ for Kidd/nachbar/1st rnder. Kidd and Nachbar are off the books quick, NJ gets a starting caliber pg and pf. their line up looks like this

                          PG-Tinsley
                          SG- Jefferson
                          SF- Carter
                          PF- O'neal
                          C- Kristic

                          that is a damn good starting 5 in the East.

                          The pacers get a solid PG to lead our young team coupled with a draft pick and an expiring contract. Boo-Yah!
                          Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            But we'd also likely have to take Brian Cardinal. Which I have a lot of problems with.
                            In a year's time it's an expiring contract.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sheridan talks superstar trades

                              Originally posted by Mal View Post
                              At leas Pau should be younger/healthier than JO..... right?

                              Is it a lateral move? Maybe, but if what I'm asking above is true then I don't think so. Plus just having someone not named Jermaine O'Neal being our best player right now might do some good.

                              As for New Jersey wanting a PG and a PF, we've got some of those for you. If they'd take Tins/JO for Kidd I certainly wouldn't mind; his age be damned. He's no saint either, though.
                              I don't think that having anyone but Jermaine be our best player is good. Sure i'd like to make a change. But I want either a clear cut better playing, ala Kevin Garnett basically someone out of reach, or I want to dump one of our contracts and get a young prospect, draft pick(s).

                              I guess i'm in the boat where I don't mind losing if it means we have a young team with a promising future. I'm fine with that because at the end of the time it's way better than a medicore team with no future and to me that's what we have with Jermaine here and I think it would be worse with Pau. Maybe not but to me Pau doesn't put this team in a better position to win a championship than Jermaine does. JMO though.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X