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

Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

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

  • #61
    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

    Originally posted by Mal View Post
    Also, can we please stop with this argument that "Well, the draft may not work out, so don't even consider it a good option if we get there!"
    Were it up to me, the draft wouldn't be mentioned except on draft lotterry day (if the Pacers are in the lottery) and a few days before the actual draft.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

      Originally posted by Peck View Post
      However to me the absolute worst thing that could happen would be for us to get O'Neal back just in time for the playoffs to where we once again will change our style of play and nobody will gain any experiance at being more than a third banana behind the Jermaine & Jamaal show.
      My money is on this happening. Like always......TPTB Modus Operandi is to "simply make the playoffs".

      If TPTB are in touch with reality....they too realize that without a healthy JONeal and ( obviously debateable ) Tinsley in the lineup that the current team is not good enough to jump ahead of the pack to get that last playoff spot. We are currently ahead of the pack of the Eastern Conference pack of mediocre teams that are making a run for the Plaoyffs. The Pacers are 1 game out of the 8th Spot amd 2 games out of the 7th spot.....my guess is that TPTB are thinking that if we are in the "thick of the hunt for the last spot in the Playoffs" without JONeal and Tinsley in the lineup.......imagine how we would be with a healthy JONeal and Tinsley in the lineup.

      The problem is that the reason that we are only 1 game behind the Nets for the 8th spot is because the rest of the Eastern Conference really sucks. Unlike any other season......we were merely lucky that our recent 7 game losing streak didn't push us so far out of the Playoffs that it would be pointless for JONeal to return.

      My guess it that TPTB will likely shut JONeal and Tinsley down for the next 2 weeks, pray that the 5 other teams that are within 4 games of the 8th Playoff spot suck as much as we do during that stretch and then have them return sometime between the end of the ASB to the 1st week in March to make a push for the Playoffs.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

        Originally posted by Mal View Post
        Also, can we please stop with this argument that "Well, the draft may not work out, so don't even consider it a good option if we get there!"
        Only if we can also stop with the "we need the pacers to lose every game the rest of the season because anybody picked in the top 10 is a sure fired all-star".


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          If the Pacers deserve to make the playoffs, I want them in the playoffs. And I say in order to make the playoffs an NBA team should have at least a .500 record. So if the Pacers win 41 games, then yes I want them in the playoffs.

          Draft picks don't really excite me, but then I don't follow college at all, so I have no idea about any of the players and I don't even think about the draft until a couple of days before the actual draft in late June.

          But one thing I never will do is root for the Pacers to lose, I just can't.
          In order for us to have a .500 record....we have to win 20 out of the next 31 games.....that 2 out of 3 games for the rest of the season.

          Do you think that we are capable of doing that?

          My guess is that we're not that good.

          Unfortunately, the LEastern Conference is so bad this season....that any team can likely get that final spot to lose against the Celtics by backing into the 8th spot. If get the 8th Playoff spot.....we're not going to earn it....we're going to be handed it on a silver platter.
          Last edited by CableKC; 02-11-2008, 02:03 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            In order for us to have a .500 record....we have to win 20 out of the next 31 games.....that 2 out of 3 games for the rest of the season.

            Do you think that we are capable of doing that?

            My guess is that we're not that good.

            Unfortunately, the LEastern Conference is so bad this season....that any team can likely get that final spot to lose against the Celtics by backing into the 8th spot. If get the 8th Playoff spot.....we're not going to earn it....we're going to be handed it on a silver platter.
            20-11 - probably not, although the schedule after these next two games and besides a 5 games stretch at the beginning of march is pretty easy. I suppose if JT and JO came back after the allstar game healthy and really wanting to win, then I think 20-11 is possible - but that isn't going to happen. But a 15-16 record is most likely, which won't get us in. I figure making the playoffs or not making the playoffs will take care of itself.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              Nope. It teaches your players to win.

              Imagine if Reggie hadn't been in the playoffs in 92 or 93. You think we'd have gotten to the ECFs in '94?

              Yeah, we need more talent. But we also need the guys we have to take winning seriously. And tanking out of the playoffs isn't the way to do that.
              Winning teaches winning. Losing does not. Getting into the playoffs with a losing record teaches how many things about winning and how many things about losing?

              It's time to start swimming instead of just keeping our mouths above water because this franchise is sinking in a number of different ways. Getting rid of problem players and actually winning more games than losing would be a pretty good place to start.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                I am currently in the camp that would like to see the high draft pick rather
                than the playoffs because:

                A.) Playoffs this year likely mean that we will be swept in humiliating fashion
                by whoever we might play (if we even make it in). I don't think this would
                teach much of anything other than how many more fans of the other team
                than Pacers fans there are running around town.

                B.) Getting a high draft pick is such a rare occurance for us that it would be
                nice for a change, and might generate excitement.

                C.) I simply don't think the Pacers deserve to be in the playoffs at this point.

                If they were to go on an extended winning streak and really start building
                some momentum, I might change my tune though.
                Last edited by RamBo_Lamar; 02-11-2008, 04:18 PM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                  Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
                  playoffs....i bet we beat boston.
                  If we beat Boston in the playoffs I'll let you select my avatar for the entire offseason.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                    Originally posted by OnlyPacersLeft View Post
                    playoffs....i bet we beat boston.
                    Heh... Are you sure you haven't been spending too much time over at
                    David Harrison's place?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                      Here's some info on draft picks from 1994-2003 (10 drafts). I didn't include 2004 on since it's still too early for those players.


                      ALL-STARS PICKED 1-5
                      • Glenn Robinson (#1, 1994, x2)
                      • Allen Iverson (#1, 1996, x8)
                      • Tim Duncan (#1, 1997, x10)
                      • Elton Brand (#1, 1999, x2)
                      • Kenyon Martin (#1, 2000, x1)
                      • Yao Ming (#1, 2002, x5)
                      • LeBron James (#1, 2003, x4)
                      • Jason Kidd (#2, 1994, x8)
                      • Antonio McDyess (#2, 1995, x1)
                      • Steve Francis (#2, 1999, x3)
                      • Grant Hill (#3, 1994, x7)
                      • Jerry Stackhouse (#3, 1995, x2)
                      • Shareef Abdur-Rahim (#3, 1996, x1)
                      • Chauncey Billups (#3, 1997, x3
                      • Baron Davis (#3, 1999, x2)
                      • Pau Gasol (#3, 2001, x1)
                      • Carmelo Anthony (#3, 2003, x2)
                      • Rasheed Wallace (#4, 1995, x4)
                      • Stephon Marbury (#4, 1996, x2)
                      • Antawn Jamison (#4, 1998, x2)
                      • Chris Bosh (#4, 2003, x3)
                      • Juwan Howard (#5, 1994, x1)
                      • Kevin Garnett (#5, 1995, x11)
                      • Ray Allen (#5, 1996, x7)
                      • Vince Carter (#5, 1998, x8)
                      • Dwyane Wade (#5, 2003, x4)

                      All-Stars: 26/50 (52%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 104
                      MVP Awards: 4 (Iverson, Duncan x2, Garnett)
                      Finals MVP Awards: 5 (Duncan x3, Billups, Wade)
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 1 (Camby)
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 2 (M. Miller, Jamison)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: M. Dunleavy, T. Chandler, E. Curry, J. Richardson, M. Miller, L. Odom, M. Bibby, K. Van Horn, M. Camby



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 6-10
                      • Antoine Walker (#6, 1996, x3)
                      • Wally Szczerbiak (#6, 1999, x1)
                      • Richard Hamilton (#7, 1999, x3)
                      • Tracy McGrady (#9, 1997, x7)
                      • Dirk Nowitzki (#9, 1998, x7)
                      • Shawn Marion (#9, 1999, x4)
                      • Amare Stoudemire (#9, 2002, x3)
                      • Eddie Jones (#10, 1994, x3)
                      • Paul Pierce (#10, 1998, x6)
                      • Joe Johnson (#10, 2001, x2)
                      • Caron Butler (#10, 2002, x2)

                      All-Stars: 11/50 (22%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 41
                      MVP Awards: 1 (Nowitzki)
                      Finals MVP Awards: 0
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards:
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: C. Kaman, K. Hinrich, T.J. Ford, Nene, C. Wilcox, S. Battier, A. Miller, J. Terry, Jason Williams, L. Hughes, E. Dampier, D. Stoudemire



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 11-15
                      • Kobe Bryant (#13, 1996, x10)
                      • Peja Stojakovic (#14, 1996, x3)
                      • Steve Nash (#15, 1996, x5)

                      All-Stars: 3/50 (6%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 18
                      MVP Awards: 2 (Nash 2x)
                      Finals MVP Awards: 0
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (Williamson)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: R. Jefferson, T. Murphy, C. Maggette, B. Wells, M. Harpring, C. Williamson, B. Barry, J. Rose



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 16-20
                      • David West (#18, 2003, x1)
                      • Jamaal Magloire (#19, 2000, x1)
                      • Ron Artest (#16, 1999, x1)
                      • Jermaine O'Neal (#17, 1996, x5)
                      • Zydrunas Ilgauskas (#20, 1996, x2)
                      • Theo Ratliff (#18, 1995, x1)

                      All-Stars: 6/50 (12%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 11
                      MVP Awards: 0
                      Finals MVP Awards: 0
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 1 Artest)
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (McKie)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: Z. Randolph, B. Haywood, H. Turkoglu, Q. Richardson, J. Posey, A. McKie



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 21-25
                      • Andrei Kirilenko (#24, 1999, x1)
                      • Michael Finley (#21, 1995, x2)

                      All-Stars: 2/50 (4%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 3
                      MVP Awards: 0
                      Finals MVP Awards: 0
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (B. Jackson)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: B. Diaw, T. Outlaw, T. Prince, N. Krstic, G. Wallace, M. Peterson, J. Foster, R. Davis, A. Harrington, B. Jackson, D. Fisher



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 26-30
                      • Tony Parker (#28, 2001, x2)
                      • Josh Howard (#29, 2003, x1)

                      All-Stars: 2/50 (4%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 3
                      MVP Awards: 0
                      Finals MVP Awards: 1 (Parker)
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 0
                      Sixth Man of the Year Awards: 1 (Barbosa)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: L. Barbosa, S. Dalembert, J. Tinsley, G. Ostertag, C. Ward



                      ALL-STARS PICKED 31+
                      • Carlos Boozer (#34, 2002, x2)
                      • Gilbert Arenas (#31, 2001, x3)
                      • Mehmet Okur (#38, 2001, x1)
                      • Michael Redd (#43, 2000, x1)
                      • Manu Ginobili (#57, 1999, x1)
                      • Rashard Lewis (#32, 1998, x1)
                      • Brad Miller (Undrafted, 1998, x2)
                      • Ben Wallace (Undrafted, 1996, x4)

                      All-Stars: 8/280+ (< 3%)
                      Total All-Star Appearances: 15
                      MVP Awards: 0
                      Finals MVP Awards: 0
                      Defensive Player of the Year Awards: 4 (Wallace x4)
                      Notable Non-All-Stars: Mo Williams, S. Jackson, K. Korver, U. Haslem, R. Bell

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                        ^JO went in the '96 draft with Kobe, Peja, and Nash. That had crazy amounts of talent in it.
                        I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                          My studies have shown me more than ever the Pacers need a top-10 pick. Only 3 All-Stars drafted between #11-15 in the decade of 1994-2003? Pathetic. Picks 6-10 may not be sure things, but you're nearly 4x as likely to find an All-Star in that range than the next 5 picks. Personally, I think we need to make a move to secure a top-5 pick. If our own pick lands in the 7-9 range, it's possible to package it with someone in order to move up to say, #5, to practically guarantee one of Gordon, Rose, or Mayo. It's very possible, and anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention lately. In 2005, the Jazz jumped up from #6 to #3 with two late 1st's as incentive. In 2004, the Bobcats moved up from #4 to #2 using the #33 pick and taking Peja Drobnjak's meager 3/$10M contract off of the Clippers.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                            I just think it's funny that everyone thinks there's a huge element of choice in this whole matter. If we suck, we're gonna get a Top 6-10 pick. If we only kinda suck, we'll sneak into the playoffs and get a pick between 14-18.

                            I can't get over the feeling you're arguing whether it would be better if the ball in the spinning roulette wheel stopped on black or red. There's no real way to alter the outcome, so why not just watch it spin and wait?

                            I mean, no one in this organization is gonna start trying to lose games. And with the parity of talent on our team our W-L record isn't gonna be affected greatly whether or not Shawne or Murphy gets more minutes.
                            Last edited by JayRedd; 02-11-2008, 05:46 PM.
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                              Originally posted by Peck View Post
                              Only if we can also stop with the "we need the pacers to lose every game the rest of the season because anybody picked in the top 10 is a sure fired all-star".
                              Well, you do your part then we'll worry about the other.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Which is better for the Pacers, high draft pick or playoffs?

                                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                                I just think it's funny that everyone thinks there's a huge element of choice in this whole matter. If we suck, we're gonna get a Top 6-10 pick. If we only kinda suck, we'll sneak into the playoffs and get a pick between 14-18.

                                No one in the organization is gonna try to lose games and with the parity of talent on our team our W-L record isn't gonna be affected greatly whether or not Shawne or Murphy gets more minutes.
                                Everyone here would take a 50+ win team if given the choice, even the Think Tank Crew. Personally, I've accepted the losing and have decided to look at the positives of a high draft pick and the excitement a talented young player would bring to this team. A pick in the top-10 could easily fetch a prospect greater than Granger. If we had people comparing Danny to Pippen during his rookie season, imagine the excitement of having, say, O.J. Mayo in a Pacers uniform.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X