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

Ok, let's look at our options.....

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

  • #16
    Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

    BP, i would understand that, as i said, it would not make me happy, but on the other hand, it might give us some hope of a spectacular trade.

    I would however appreciate some examples of this BS that goes on, just to "form an opinion" so to speak.

    Al, well I still think he should go, so combining him with Ron should give us a serious shot at Tmac

    hey, there's half full bottle left somewhere.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

      I can think of a worse still senario in the off season. Indiana does consider pursuing T-mac because they are unwilling to part with Artest.
      New Jersey gets him and the Pacers become the third best team in the conference. And for the second time in 6 months a rival takes a risk and gets a big name star.

      If T-mac is avalible we have to at least talk about it. Otherwise (assuming there aren't huge behind the scene Artest issues) option two is the best course.
      "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

      "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

        Thinking more on the subject I revisited what Bird and Carlisle have said since the season ended and I don't think rearranging the lineup is a very good option.

        First Carlisle said, "This is an unbalanced roster."

        He's right. We mostly have young guys that want to play and need to play to improve. So my question is what is a balanced roster? I would say an 8 man rotation is optimum, with five guys up front and three in the back court. The five players up front need to cover three positions. Best would be a player who can backup 4 & 5, and a player who can backup 3. In the back court we need a combo guard to backup both guards. The bench to be balanced needs to be half veterans and half young guys.

        Bird said, "With the players we have, we have a chance to make our team stronger. . . If we make a couple of moves, we have a legitimate chance to get out of the Eastern Conference. Everybody else's roster seems to be set. We have assets here and logjams in certain areas. If we make the right moves, we can separate ourselves from everybody else."

        "A couple moves," Bird said. I think most would agree that what we need is another big guy up front, and Reggie's replacement. Since Walsh said Reggie's replacement is not on the team now, that rule's out both Jones boys and Artest starting at guard.

        Okay, let's look at what we need by roster.

        1] PF...Starter
        2] SF...Starter
        3] C....Starter
        4] SG..Starter
        5] PG..Starter
        6] Rotation player at 4 & 5.
        7] Rotation player at 3.
        8] Rotation player at 1 & 2.
        9] Veteran
        10 Veteran
        11 Veteran
        12 Young guy
        13 Young guy
        14 Young guy
        15 young guy

        Now lets break it down a bit more. Let's take the C & PF positions, optimum would be a 3 man rotation, but we don't really have what we need. At PF we have JO, who can backup center. At center we have Foster. Right now the only player who can back up both is Croshere. What it boils down to is we need someone bigger than both JO and Foster to be part of this rotation.

        Elsewhere up front we have Artest playing the small forward position and Al backing him up. This is perfect except Al doesn't want to be a backup. Moving Bender here as 6th man looks good.

        In the back court we have Tinsley and an aging Reggie. Fred is an undersized combo guard.

        The problems we need to solve to have an optimum balanced rotation are we need a big guy in the 4-5 rotation, we need Reggie's replacement, and to a lessor extent we need a bigger combo guard. Once we have a balanced rotation then the rest of the roster needs to be balanced with vets and young players.

        Sitting still with this roster is not the way to go, the problems need to be addressed.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

          Option 1 leaves us with little to no rebounding during the starting minutes.
          Al Harrington 6.4 rpg

          Jeff Foster 7.4 rpg

          I don't want to hear anything about rebounds per min. btw, because as U.B. has pointed out this isn't fantasy basketball. If Foster was so good then it didn't matter how good Al was, Jeff would play more min. a game.
          You're trying to make it sound more simple than it actually is.

          Al plays more minutes than Jeff, not because he's a better rebounder, but because he's a better basketball player; he brings more collectively to the table than Jeff. THAT is why he gets more minute. And with more minutes, you have more chances at grabbing rebounds, and he STILL doesn't get as many as Jeff.

          No way does anyone convince me Al is in Jeff's league as a rebounder. In 7 more minutes, Al grabs 1 less rebound.

          And we need someone to grab the boards in the starting lineup, and Jeff's the man for that.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

            Thinking more on the subject I revisited what Bird and Carlisle have said since the season ended and I don't think rearranging the lineup is a very good option.

            First Carlisle said, "This is an unbalanced roster."

            He's right. We mostly have young guys that want to play and need to play to improve. So my question is what is a balanced roster? I would say an 8 man rotation is optimum, with five guys up front and three in the back court. The five players up front need to cover three positions. Best would be a player who can backup 4 & 5, and a player who can backup 3. In the back court we need a combo guard to backup both guards. The bench to be balanced needs to be half veterans and half young guys.

            Bird said, "With the players we have, we have a chance to make our team stronger. . . If we make a couple of moves, we have a legitimate chance to get out of the Eastern Conference. Everybody else's roster seems to be set. We have assets here and logjams in certain areas. If we make the right moves, we can separate ourselves from everybody else."

            "A couple moves," Bird said. I think most would agree that what we need is another big guy up front, and Reggie's replacement. Since Walsh said Reggie's replacement is not on the team now, that rule's out both Jones boys and Artest starting at guard.

            Okay, let's look at what we need by roster.

            1] PF...Starter
            2] SF...Starter
            3] C....Starter
            4] SG..Starter
            5] PG..Starter
            6] Rotation player at 4 & 5.
            7] Rotation player at 3.
            8] Rotation player at 1 & 2.
            9] Veteran
            10 Veteran
            11 Veteran
            12 Young guy
            13 Young guy
            14 Young guy
            15 young guy

            Now lets break it down a bit more. Let's take the C & PF positions, optimum would be a 3 man rotation, but we don't really have what we need. At PF we have JO, who can backup center. At center we have Foster. Right now the only player who can back up both is Croshere. What it boils down to is we need someone bigger than both JO and Foster to be part of this rotation.

            Elsewhere up front we have Artest playing the small forward position and Al backing him up. This is perfect except Al doesn't want to be a backup. Moving Bender here as 6th man looks good.

            In the back court we have Tinsley and an aging Reggie. Fred is an undersized combo guard.

            The problems we need to solve to have an optimum balanced rotation are we need a big guy in the 4-5 rotation, we need Reggie's replacement, and to a lessor extent we need a bigger combo guard. Once we have a balanced rotation then the rest of the roster needs to be balanced with vets and young players.

            Sitting still with this roster is not the way to go, the problems need to be addressed.

            Great comments. I agree with almost everything in there. Eight-man rotation. Combo guard. Need more size and an oustide threat.

            I'd consider filling out the roster as:

            PF - O'Neal
            C - Dampier (trade Al + change)
            SF - McGrady (trade Ron + Bender + F. Jones EDIT Okay, I'll keep Jones)
            SG - Reggie (by default)
            PG - Tinsley
            combo guard - Brent Barry (MLE)
            PF/ C - Croshere EDIT or Foster depending on matchups
            G/F - Sato (draft) (one-year apprenticeship as the backup)
            EDIT Tenth-man - Brian Cardinal
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....



              Great comments. I agree with almost everything in there. Eight-man rotation. Combo guard. Need more size and an oustide threat.

              I'd consider filling out the roster as:

              PF - O'Neal
              C - Dampier (trade Al + change)
              SF - McGrady (trade Ron + Bender + F. Jones)
              SG - Reggie (by default)
              PG - Tinsley
              combo guard - Brent Barry (MLE)
              PF/ C - Croshere
              G/F - Sato (draft) (one-year apprenticeship as the backup)
              I could live with that lineup! <said tongue in cheek>

              However I think you are giving to much to get TMac. Ron is almost his equal when you consider the defence Ron plays. Giving up another player to match salary's would be ok, but not both Bender and Fred.

              I'm gonna do my own roster!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                Again I will reiterate, Reggie will start again next year. Simply because DW is too loyal and all along they said Reggie will start as long as he plays. Unless Reggie says he doesnt want to, i expect him to be next years starter.

                That being said is the reason i think Dampier is the person we are going after. We need to get bigger up front. Dampier, JO, and Artest makes us one of the biggest and most talented frontcourts in not only the east but the league.

                I dont think we will get Richardson as he is their main scoring threat and they are looking for a PF that can combo with him. Al would give them a line up of Claxton, Richardson, Dunleavy, Al, Pollard/Foyle/someone. Not bad for them.

                Now as for the deal i would like to throw the idea of Al and Pollard for Dampier and Cheaney...then throw ins to make it work. I liek Cheaney and he is not the SG of the future but he provides a good player there for a coupel seasons while Reggie is still here. Cheaney is a career 46% shooter and 31% 3 point shooter which isnt great from behind arc, but he has a great mid range shot which is deadly. Which we dont have anyone on this team that has. He is 6'7" 217, so he can guard bigger guards and SFs without a big mismatch so Ron could cover a SG if needed and not lose much at the defensive SF spot.

                The pacers would then have Reggie playing 15 minutes a game and Cheaney and Freddie playing the other 33 minutes or so. This would allow Foster to play back up center which IMO is better as he is matched up against other teams backups and he can dominate inside ont he boards even more.

                So lineup is
                Tins
                Reggie
                Ron
                JO
                Damp

                Backups:
                AJ
                Cheaney/Freddie
                Bender/Cheaney
                Cro/Bender
                Foster/Primoz


                I like that lineup. I think we need to face the fact that Reggie is not retiring and he will remain starter another year but with much less minutes, more of a you deserve it type thing...much liek Mullin did when he played under Bird. If hes feeling it, maybe more, but if not, he comes out and lets others play. Then at end if you need a big shot, he is fresh and able to come in and finsih out a game. So since we are not going to get a TMAc or such, we need a shooter and Cheaney can fill that role.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                  Okay, how about this roster?

                  1] PF...Starter .......................JO
                  2] SF...Starter .......................Ron
                  3] C....Starter .......................Dampier (Trade, AL & Pollard)
                  4] SG..Starter .......................Reggie
                  5] PG..Starter .......................Tinsley

                  6] Rotation player at 4 & 5......Mark Blount (S&T Foster & Brezac)
                  7] Rotation player at 3. ..........Bender
                  8] Rotation player at 1 & 2......B.Barry (MLE)

                  9] Veteran ............................Croshere
                  10 Veteran ............................Johnson
                  11 Young guy ........................Cardinal (S&T, AL & Pollard)
                  12 Young guy ........................Pietrus (Trade, AL & Pollard)
                  13 Young guy ....................... #29 pick & Fred for a higher SG pick.

                  Lose JJ or nobody to Charlotte in the expansion draft.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                    aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                      Okay, how about this roster?

                      1] PF...Starter .......................JO
                      2] SF...Starter .......................Ron
                      3] C....Starter .......................Dampier (Trade, AL & Pollard)
                      4] SG..Starter .......................Reggie
                      5] PG..Starter .......................Tinsley

                      6] Rotation player at 4 & 5......Mark Blount (S&T Foster & Brezac)
                      7] Rotation player at 3. ..........Bender
                      8] Rotation player at 1 & 2......B.Barry (MLE)

                      9] Veteran ............................Croshere
                      10 Veteran ............................Johnson
                      11 Young guy ........................Cardinal (S&T, AL & Pollard)
                      12 Young guy ........................Pietrus (Trade, AL & Pollard)
                      13 Young guy ....................... #29 pick & Fred for a higher SG pick.

                      Lose JJ or nobody to Charlotte in the expansion draft.
                      Okay.

                      You have blown up our roster. We don't need that. We need to get a key piece or two...we don't need to rebuild

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                        Some of you are getting a little carried away. I can't get beyond trading Ron. I simply could not do that, so I can't advocate doing so.

                        I suppose I better chime in here about Dampier. I don't want him. What is he going to do when J.O is getting the ball in the post. Can he shoot the 15 foot jumper? No, but then Foster can't either. But Dampier is a terrible passer, has terrible hands. He just clogs the middle for J.O and Ron. Well you say, Ok but on defense he and J.O will be great. Not really. Damp is slow, sure he is good against big post up players, and Damp can block shots, but he will change our system of defense. And how many big post up players will he need to guard. The three best teams in the east, Heat, Pistons, Nets, don't have anyone we need Damp

                        Also do you want J.O guarding, Odom, Sheed, Kmart, or other similar quick power forwards who weill draw J.O out of the lane. I sure don't.

                        I would be OK with Damp coming off he bench and playing 20 minutes per game.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                          Not for the salary he commands you wouldn't.
                          Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                            Some of you are getting a little carried away. I can't get beyond trading Ron. I simply could not do that, so I can't advocate doing so.

                            I suppose I better chime in here about Dampier. I don't want him. What is he going to do when J.O is getting the ball in the post. Can he shoot the 15 foot jumper? No, but then Foster can't either. But Dampier is a terrible passer, has terrible hands. He just clogs the middle for J.O and Ron. Well you say, Ok but on defense he and J.O will be great. Not really. Damp is slow, sure he is good against big post up players, and Damp can block shots, but he will change our system of defense. And how many big post up players will he need to guard. The three best teams in the east, Heat, Pistons, Nets, don't have anyone we need Damp

                            Also do you want J.O guarding, Odom, Sheed, Kmart, or other similar quick power forwards who weill draw J.O out of the lane. I sure don't.

                            I would be OK with Damp coming off he bench and playing 20 minutes per game.


                            UB,
                            I respectfully disagree with you...but it seems we dont agree on much. LOL...anyways...one of the reasons we got beat by Detroit was Ben Wallace abused Foster and showed just how much stronger he was than Foster. Dampier would negate that strentgh factor, now Ben will still get his rebounds, that wont matter, but he can definitely body hiim up better than Foster.

                            I dont garee he is way slow and a lane clogger. I have seen him play quite a few times and he is very athletic especially for his size. Now i iwll agree his hands arent the greatest...but... And on top of that we need another shot blocker that can intimadate people coming into lane. Foster intimadates nobody.

                            The point im making isnt about Damp guarding those guys you mention, its about him keeping people from driving the lane so easily. How many shots at the rim did the Pistons get in that series that Dampier could affect.

                            As far as guarding Odom, Rasheed, and Martin, we would still have Foster, and its not liek he would never play, but i like the idea of a bigger front line.

                            One last point UB, in Dampier you would get the same rebounding if not better, more blocked shots, a bigger body, and better scoring from the center position. I guess i just dont see this as a bad thing.

                            The funny thing is besides the 15 foot jumper many would say your description of Damp sounds liek Brad Miller, and him and JO seemed to play well together. And i think Damp can hit the 15 footer. JMO though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                              UB,
                              I respectfully disagree with you...but it seems we dont agree on much. LOL...anyways...one of the reasons we got beat by Detroit was Ben Wallace abused Foster and showed just how much stronger he was than Foster. Dampier would negate that strentgh factor, now Ben will still get his rebounds, that wont matter, but he can definitely body hiim up better than Foster.


                              We agree on a lot of things, but I enjoy "discussing" stuff with you because I respect your opinion. Ben would use his quickness and blow right by Dampier for rebounds. Foster was taken out of the lineup not because ben ws abusing him, but because the Pacers needed 5 offensive players on the floor at all times.

                              I dont garee he is way slow and a lane clogger. I have seen him play quite a few times and he is very athletic especially for his size. Now i iwll agree his hands arent the greatest...but... And on top of that we need another shot blocker that can intimadate people coming into lane. Foster intimadates nobody.


                              The point im making isnt about Damp guarding those guys you mention, its about him keeping people from driving the lane so easily. How many shots at the rim did the Pistons get in that series that Dampier could affect.

                              As far as guarding Odom, Rasheed, and Martin, we would still have Foster, and its not liek he would never play, but I like the idea of a bigger front line.

                              One last point UB, in Dampier you would get the same rebounding if not better, more blocked shots, a bigger body, and better scoring from the center position. I guess i just dont see this as a bad thing.

                              The funny thing is besides the 15 foot jumper many would say your description of Damp sounds liek Brad Miller, and him and JO seemed to play well together. And i think Damp can hit the 15 footer. JMO though.


                              Brad has very good hands and is an excellent passer. As i said if Damp can be gotten cheaply and can come off the benhc, then i am all for it

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                                Again I will reiterate, Reggie will start again next year. Simply because DW is too loyal and all along they said Reggie will start as long as he plays. Unless Reggie says he doesnt want to, i expect him to be next years starter.

                                That being said is the reason i think Dampier is the person we are going after. We need to get bigger up front. Dampier, JO, and Artest makes us one of the biggest and most talented frontcourts in not only the east but the league.

                                I dont think we will get Richardson as he is their main scoring threat and they are looking for a PF that can combo with him. Al would give them a line up of Claxton, Richardson, Dunleavy, Al, Pollard/Foyle/someone. Not bad for them.

                                Now as for the deal i would like to throw the idea of Al and Pollard for Dampier and Cheaney...then throw ins to make it work. I liek Cheaney and he is not the SG of the future but he provides a good player there for a coupel seasons while Reggie is still here. Cheaney is a career 46% shooter and 31% 3 point shooter which isnt great from behind arc, but he has a great mid range shot which is deadly. Which we dont have anyone on this team that has. He is 6'7" 217, so he can guard bigger guards and SFs without a big mismatch so Ron could cover a SG if needed and not lose much at the defensive SF spot.

                                The pacers would then have Reggie playing 15 minutes a game and Cheaney and Freddie playing the other 33 minutes or so. This would allow Foster to play back up center which IMO is better as he is matched up against other teams backups and he can dominate inside ont he boards even more.

                                So lineup is
                                Tins
                                Reggie
                                Ron
                                JO
                                Damp

                                Backups:
                                AJ
                                Cheaney/Freddie
                                Bender/Cheaney
                                Cro/Bender
                                Foster/Primoz


                                I like that lineup. I think we need to face the fact that Reggie is not retiring and he will remain starter another year but with much less minutes, more of a you deserve it type thing...much liek Mullin did when he played under Bird. If hes feeling it, maybe more, but if not, he comes out and lets others play. Then at end if you need a big shot, he is fresh and able to come in and finsih out a game. So since we are not going to get a TMAc or such, we need a shooter and Cheaney can fill that role.
                                Exactly my thoughts, diego. Except that instead of acquiring Cheaney, we could additionally also throw in our MLE and 29th pick at Golden State or a 3rd party which might want to get involved to get a combo-guard a la Barry, resigned and all. I dont know if this is possible, but it would open op more trade scenarios and possibilities for our team.

                                Regards,

                                Mourning
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X