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

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

    Enough time has gone past now so that we can take an honest look at our team without looking at it through the eyes of pain or dissapointment of losing to the Pistons in the E.C. finals.

    It's now conventional wisdom that a trade will/must be made to ease the glut of players we have at the small forward spot. It has been spoken by Carlisle, Bird, Walsh, local & national newsmedia. We've even talked about it on here.

    What I want to do now is challenge that wisdom & see if that really is the best & only way for our team to take the next step.

    Obviousley the trade fodder in the press & even somewhat the management has been Al Harrington.

    Al himself helped get the ball rolling by asking that if more playing time weren't made available he would prefer a trade. Everybody assumes that by him stating "more playing time" he means starting. That's not what he said, reportedly, but I think it's a safe assumption.

    The team does seem to have a glut of players who are what I call tweeners. This is not an accident btw, Walsh started in the late 90's drafting players who could fill multi-role capabilities. He felt that that was the future of the league. Watching Garnett, O'Neal, etc. it's hard to argue against him, to a point.

    But I wonder if it's necassary to make the big changes that most people think we need.

    Could we not make a drastic change in our team structure just by altering the starting lineup?

    Instead of being forced to trade Al, who we have a lot of time & money invested into, could we not accomodate his desire to start?

    People are always telling me that it doesn't matter who starts, it's just about who finishes & gets the min. Of course I have never ever agreed with that because it absolutely matters to the players & if it didn't matter they would have no problem with the following.

    Bench Jeff Foster & Reggie Miller. Start Fred Jones & Al Harrington.

    This gives you

    C- Jermaine O'Neal
    Pf- Al Harrington
    Sf- Ron Artest
    Sg- Fred Jones
    Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

    I know some are going to come on here & talk about lack of size in that starting lineup & I agree. However, I want to point out to those people (U.B.) you keep saying it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes & plays the min.

    If this lineup became overwhelmed then a change can be made during the game. Besides, other than Fred, this is the lineup that finished a lot of games last season.

    Now the one thing this does not do is address the outside shooting that we need. Fred seems to have grown as the season has gone on & if he works on it this summer he may get even better.

    What this does do though is hold fast the fear of some (U.B.) that trading for a s.g. would affect our defense. Fred is a GREAT defender. Actually when Fred & Ron are on the floor at the same time the peremater players of the other team are usually thrown into chaos.

    Al has shown time & time again, that if he starts he goes out of his way to blend into the system. Sometimes he does this to the teams detriment, but if he knew he was starting all of the time then I think he would adjust.

    Offensive spacing I don't think will be that much of a problem either. Al does like to play on the blocks but he plays more on the wings while J.O. plays more to the front of the rim.

    This also assures that Ron sticks with the team as well (smile U.B.).

    Why is this a bad idea.

    Also back to the size thing, I am going to use the whole argument that you guys use with me about Foster. How many teams really have that many big players that Al couldn't handle? How many of those same players would Al cause problems for?

    Now the problem with this is several fold. Let's do this one at a time.

    1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be. Reggie Miller may cost us Al Harrington.

    2. Jon Bender. This does nothing to help Jon get the solid min. he needs. Unless they relegate Foster to the 9th or 10th man spot I don't see Jon getting more than 12-15 min. a game with this lineup.

    3. Jeff Foster. Foster deserves better than this. He played well all season long & did make big improvements. But at this point in time it has to come down to what helps the team the most & right now the lineup I've given you above solves some of our problems.

    4. Austin Croshere. I'm not sure this is a problem because he's spent so many years now with inconsistant min. But this would be another year of that.

    I'm sure there are more issues that some of you will come up with.

    Ok, that is option # 1.

    Let's look at another option.

    Trade Al & filler for shooting guard & filler.

    First off, let's erase the name T-Mac out of our minds. Al ain't going to get it done. Let's just assume Al will bring somebody like Flip Murray from Seattle (I'm not saying him but along those lines).

    Thus you still have...

    C- Jeff Foster
    Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
    Sf- Ron Artest
    Sg- _____________
    Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

    This does solve some of your outside shooting problems. But we don't know about thier defense.

    The bench does become thinned out & Bender does get his chance to get more min. per game.

    Now let's look at the downside.

    1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be.

    2. Jon Bender. He gets his shot, but what if he flops. What he shows there is nothing more to it & that he does not get it. You go from having a solid bench to now having your 6th man be very unreliable.

    3. Austin Croshere. You now have to depend on a player who has yet to show that he will be consistant. He won't hurt you, but he may not help much either.

    4. Shooting guard. The player you trade for (if it is for Al) will most likely be an up & coming player or a lesser known player. What if they don't produce. What if they can't hit the outside shot, what if they turn out to be like Ron Mercer?

    That's option # 2.

    Option # 3.

    Ron Artest & filler is traded for star shooting guard. Insert T-Mac trade here.

    Let's assume that Ron will bring a top flight player so our lineup looks like this.

    C- Jeff Foster
    Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
    Sf- Al Harrington
    Sg- T-Mac (or other star)
    Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

    This certainly helps the offense. Some will argue that our defense drops way down & without a doubt it will. However Carlisle's system can overcome the loss of any one player & not all s.g.'s are horrid defenders. Nobody will be on Ron's level, but they won't be on World B. Free's level either.

    The other side benefit to this might be something we don't know about, it might improve team chemistry. We don't know, but it has been discussed.

    Ok, the down sides to this.

    1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be.

    2. Ron Artest defense. There can be no doubt, this will hurt.

    3. Al Harrington. He has never had to stand up to be a starter for an entire season. Will it work?

    Ok, those are just some ideas. Can we say that we really have to do option # 2 as opposed to # 1 or # 3?


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

  • #2
    Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

    Very nice post Peck (as usual).

    My problems with all or most of the proposals made and even in your post is the Al starting.
    As simple as that, Al has not proven one minute that he can do a consistent, good job at PF and has himself said he would prefer the SF position, since that is his natural position.
    This would only be possible I think if we trade Ron, so you add the question: do you want to satisfy Al by trading Ron?
    Not that it would make me happy, I just feel like some, that Al is not starting material on this team.
    Indeed it weakens the bench IF JB fails, but I feel it also weakens the starting 5.

    If trading Ron leaves us with Al starting, he will want to be the SF, which leaves us indeed with a weaker bench and I for one feel that it would leave our starting 5 weaker by en large, unless indeed Tmac.

    Option 1 strangely enough is a team we have not seen together on court all season according to the 5-man +/- .

    However take Tins out and insert Aj and that unit had floor time, resulting in -10 avg, which I think is some indication that even with Tins on the floor this unit would not be that impressive.

    It also assumes that your franchise player will move to C knowing that foul trouble will be his the larger part of every game, which I think weakens us even further.

    In short, I think it is not such a great idea.

    Option 2 leaves you with the question of JB, however if he fails, perhaps Fred can move over, though that would be asking very much, Cro? again asking a lot, so yes, going with that option makes you ride quite a bit on JB, whether that is a good idea remains to be seen, of course we could also draft someone to be the backup, or see that the filler can be a backup SF.

    If the traded SG can't hit his shot then you have Fred to step in, so some cover is available at that position.

    So by far this does the least to weaken the team.

    Option 3 weakens the team on defense, that much is sure, perhaps even a lot but whether the arrival of Tmac would "solve" that is the major question.
    I can see more minutes for JB though not nearly enough to assess him in that team. Al will remain pouting because he will play less minutes then he does now, despite starting because IF JB breaks out, he will get the majority of those minutes.
    Al will likely have to move to PF during the game when Jeff is out and again, that is not his liking.

    The more we discuss these options the more i get the feeling that it is perhaps a lot better for everyone involved inclduing team chemistry, that Al moves on.
    There are few ways to satisfy his demands, and none would improve the team in the least.
    The main problem as I see it is that Al simply wants to be the man, which JO is primarily and Ron secondarily.
    In the league wide +/- per player Ron is at a respectable # 8 in VERY nice company and getting rid of a player of that statue to comfort Al is something I can not see happening.

    I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.

    Jo has over the past year shaken his introvert self into the absolute team leader, his comments make that clear, his presence make that clear.

    I remember him int he final press conference ofter the Det loss clearly referring to the team as "my team", which tells me a lot. Add to that the fact that the max contract rewarded to him is not something that management has done lightly to a then 24 year old, so he is in for the ride and I can not imagine he would not be asked for an opinion which would then be taken into serious consideration.
    On the one hand it can be exciting that he can play with Tmac, but on the other hand, to many captains and or to many alphas on the same team might give very serious problems.
    Now Tmac might be the one exception to that considering his attitude to gladly allow someone else to be THE man on the team, but a guy like Allen would give you that problem most surely.

    I do not think Al is the right material to be one of the alphas on the team, though he wants to be. Adding another problem such as that might ruin more then it brings.
    Keeping Ron and adding a "role" player at SG would most likely be the best solution, something Al can bring us, and at the same time you solve the problem of Al's desires, he can try and be THE man on another team
    .
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

      Option 1 leaves us with little to no rebounding during the starting minutes. I don't see our "get back down the court after a shot" defensive strategy changing next year, so we really need someone at 5 or 4 who can concentrate on offensive rebounds. That's what keeps Foster in it for me, because he is the rebounder who doesn't need the offensive touches to stroke his ego.

      Option 3 bothers me because I really think Artest is our "second star" and that we should be adding to him, not just swapping him out to see what happens. In the long run, our problems with Ron are a lot less than the problems with Sprewell, Iverson, and Bryant (to name a few). I don't want to lose him unless it is clear that we upgrade offesnisvely and stay the same defensively. Anything else means we're trading down, and we all agree we don't need that.

      So, it's Option 2 for me almost by default. Of course, I've always been in the "do everything by doing nothing" school, and for me to even admit we need a major starter position filled via trade or Free Agency is a big step
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

        Wow, so much to respond to.

        Let me address your first scenerio.

        No trades and moving AL and Fred into the starting lineup.

        That does improve the perimeter defense. Fred's lack of size is the only thing that hurts him at times. I was surprised to see Rip post him up in the ECF with great success.

        Let me get to my 2 problems with that lineup.

        1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem

        2) Peck, I know you know this is coming. Several times this past season I said for whatever reason a front line of Ron, Al and J.O. was not as successful at crunch time as a lineup of Ron, J.O and Jeff. On paper you would not think so, but as the season went along Rick used AL less and less at crunch time, and used jeff more and more. I don't know why they are better with Jeff in there, but they are.

        Rick sees that, why do you think Rick started Cro in games 4 and 5 instead of AL. Yes Rick went with Al to start game #6, but Cro was on the floor at crunch time after Al got his dunk blocked.

        I think Al's best role is with the second unit as its main post player, the second unit needs one and the first unit with J.O and Ron does not

        As long as ron and J.O are on this team, hopefully for the next 10 years, I don't think Al will start or finish most games. AL is too good for that therefore, as much as I like AL and would hate to see him go, if the right trade comes along he should be traded.

        I'll comment on your other scenerios later

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

          I more or less agree with Able. But here's some other thoughts in no certain order.

          1] Thinking the team will get better just by changing the starting lineup is probably true, but it's a young team and will get better even if the starting lineup doesn't change. Plus keeping the team the same doesn't insure that Carlisle will make changes in the starting lineup.

          2] Larry Bird has said we will trade Al only if we can get better, if not, he's not trading Al.

          3] No doubt JO is the Pacers best center, (Just like Tim Duncan is SA's best center) but he's also our MVP and he gets beat up playing center, even in the east. It's better for him and thus the team if he plays PF.

          4] The Pacers have to many players that could start for other teams. Although the players more or less bought into getting less time this year, they are young and want to play. Free agents Anderson, and Brewer, are both thinking of leaving because of playing time. My question is how many others would leave if they had the chance?

          5] To keep the players happy the Pacers HAVE to thin out the ranks of those who think they should play more minutes or down the road the team will implode.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

            Bench Jeff Foster & Reggie Miller. Start Fred Jones & Al Harrington.

            This gives you

            C- Jermaine O'Neal
            Pf- Al Harrington
            Sf- Ron Artest
            Sg- Fred Jones
            Pg- Jamaal Tinsely
            Sorry to say. I don't like this one. Its not "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" but its just shuffling and still doesn't address our weaknesses, it just placates a few guys. I agree that Fred should start. The problem with benching Foster for Harrington are two-fold. One, Jermaine is at risk for early foul trouble by guarding the opposing center at the outset. Second, the second unit becomes very offensively challenged - Johnson, Miller, Bender, Croshere and Foster won't scare anyone - there is not a consistent guy in that bunch.



            Thus you still have...

            C- Jeff Foster
            Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
            Sf- Ron Artest
            Sg- _____________
            Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

            This does solve some of your outside shooting problems. But we don't know about thier defense.

            The bench does become thinned out & Bender does get his chance to get more min. per game.
            This seems most likely. Who know what Reggie will do though? If he won't sit for Jones, will he sit for any other "tier 2" guy (Richardson, Murray, Barry, etc.) ? If Fred has moved past Reggie and another SG is added would you move Reggie to the 3rd SG? Would Jones be moved to the 3rd SG? I fear that the SG spot is going to be chaotic if another SG is added.


            Option # 3.

            Ron Artest & filler is traded for star shooting guard. Insert T-Mac trade here.

            Let's assume that Ron will bring a top flight player so our lineup looks like this.

            C- Jeff Foster
            Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
            Sf- Al Harrington
            Sg- T-Mac (or other star)
            Pg- Jamaal Tinsely
            This one seems to be gathering momentum, but seems less likey. Its tough to pull off a superstar trade anyway, but this Pacer team, probably needs less tinkering and I think that trading Artest might be going to far, but we would be naive to think that LB/DW are not looking at this possibility.

            Great post as always. What are your thoughts on moving up in the draft? I think that its the teams best interest to forget trading up. Just get the best guy at #29. Anybody who disagrees with trading Antonio Davis for the 5th pick and favors trading Al for a top ten pick should explain themselves.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

              If one of your options is not moving anybody, why not:

              Tinsley
              Artest
              Harrington
              O'Neal
              Foster

              Slick was pushing the idea of Ron playing the 2 during the Heat series. If it's good enough for Slick, it's good enough for me.......
              PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                2] Larry Bird has said we will trade Al only if we can get better, if not, he's not trading Al.

                3] No doubt JO is the Pacers best center, (Just like Tim Duncan is SA's best center) but he's also our MVP and he gets beat up playing center, even in the east. It's better for him and thus the team if he plays PF.
                Great points. Al won't be traded unless we can get someone of equal or better value, in terms of a different position however.

                And 3 is a great great point. JO gets beat up every time he plays C. This is why he and Duncan always are at PF.
                Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                  1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem

                  Well if those are our 3 best perimeter shooters, then I think that we're already in trouble.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                    My thoughts are as long as Reggie plays, he is starting. Not that i want to see that, but thats what will happen. Reggie will spend one more year chasing the ring as a starter. But i honestly feel he will play significantly less minutes. Almost like ok...you get to start but you are only gonna get about 15 minutes a game.

                    I think the Pacers use the mid level to sign a mid tier guy that is a good shooter and use him and Freddie getting the remaining minutes. That leaves about 33-35 minutes a game for them to split based on matchups.

                    I think Al will be traded, but it will be for a big man, and i really think it will be Dampier. I think Bird and carlisle like the idea of a front line of Ron, Jo, And Dampier...that is a hoss of a front line. Add to that Foster coming off the bench, thats a pretty formidable lineup.

                    bender will become 6th man and play minutes at SG, SF, and possibly PF at specific match up times. Cro will get the back up minutes at PF, hence cementing his spot in the rotation. Plus Bird and Carlisle like him and his shooting ability.

                    at PG, Tins is the man. Unfortuneatly i see Brewer going elsewhere as Rick is just to set on AJ as backup and AJ stays knowing no other team will play him as amny minutes as he gets here. So Brewer bolts for better opportunity. If this happens i anticipate seeing Freddie get more minutes at PG in specific situations. I still think if Freddie is ever going to start it will be at a PG spot, not a SG. As his passing ability gets better, he could make a devastating PG. Quick, good defender, can penetrate and finish at basket. I know this sounds crazy but i see Freddie's main future with the pacers as that combo guard we all thought, not as our future SG.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                      Able wrote:

                      "I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.

                      Jo has over the past year shaken his introvert self into the absolute team leader, his comments make that clear, his presence make that clear."


                      The one thing to consider is that upper management (read Walsh) probably had an idea that he was going to be getting a new middle management & coach this season so he it is reasonable to think that he wanted to see how Ron would react to a new structure.

                      Also, yes, J.O. is the leader & I don't know if the team would give him a say in matters or not. They didn't with Thomas, but they probably already knew that answer.

                      But seeing as how if we go on J.O. alone I think a couple of things need to be considered.

                      1. Al & J.O. are friends.

                      2. J.O. may have to help Al with moods because of P.T. but he doesn't have to babysit him the way he does with Ron. Remember back to last fall when he said he had to go out of his way to get closer to Ron.

                      3. I think people look at Al & automatically assume he wants to be the man. That may be right, I don't know but I do know this. At the end of game 6 Ron didn't say he wanted to rebound better to help the team. He said he wanted to get the ball more. He shot the ball 17 times a games, how many more shots did he want? BTW, before the Ron Artest chorus begins to tell me that it was a statement made in frustration, let me remind them that he made the same comments at the end of game 2 & after game 4 he said he played better because he got the ball more. Is everybody certain that Ron doesn't want to be the man? Remember when he was benched do to conduct detrimental to winning? Remember what he was complaining about? It was about our inside outside game. In other words O'Neal. Are you sure that if J.O. was to have input that Artest would be his option?


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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.


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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                          Wow, so much to respond to.

                          Let me address your first scenerio.

                          No trades and moving AL and Fred into the starting lineup.

                          That does improve the perimeter defense. Fred's lack of size is the only thing that hurts him at times. I was surprised to see Rip post him up in the ECF with great success.

                          Let me get to my 2 problems with that lineup.

                          1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem

                          2) Peck, I know you know this is coming. Several times this past season I said for whatever reason a front line of Ron, Al and J.O. was not as successful at crunch time as a lineup of Ron, J.O and Jeff. On paper you would not think so, but as the season went along Rick used AL less and less at crunch time, and used jeff more and more. I don't know why they are better with Jeff in there, but they are.

                          Rick sees that, why do you think Rick started Cro in games 4 and 5 instead of AL. Yes Rick went with Al to start game #6, but Cro was on the floor at crunch time after Al got his dunk blocked.


                          I think Al's best role is with the second unit as its main post player, the second unit needs one and the first unit with J.O and Ron does not

                          As long as ron and J.O are on this team, hopefully for the next 10 years, I don't think Al will start or finish most games. AL is too good for that therefore, as much as I like AL and would hate to see him go, if the right trade comes along he should be traded.

                          I'll comment on your other scenerios later
                          On # 2, do you remember when he started using Jeff as the closer? I know it wasn't till after the all-star break but I just don't know when it was.

                          Second of all your argument about Cro & Al starting at the end of the playoffs makes no sense to me in this scenario. If anything it is saying that Jeff is a problem seeing as how he barely played at all those last three games. Now we both know that is not the real answer because it was just a matter of matchups & Jeff will play more than that on any given occasion, but it just didn't help advance your arguement IMO.


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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                            Peck,

                            1. a well known fact
                            2. it worked and they are much closer, Ron joins him on nights out nowadays, some people are harder in opening up to their collegues and new friends.
                            3. One remark from a guy who has his tongue on his heart, however I can not recall him saying so after game 2 & 4, nonetheless, what he means is not so much that he gets the ball more, even though when he takes over 20 shots a game, we usually win, but I am sure he means that he doesn't want the ball in the last 3 seconds of the shotclock which now often happens, but earlier on, when playmaking is still possible, he never said he wants to shoot more, just that he wants the ball more, with AJ on the floor he often takes over the distribution, because otherwise nothing happens at all.

                            And yes I remember what he was complaining about, exactly about what was changed from then on, the grinding out halfcourt, we started playing faster, less plays were called and we went on a rampage.

                            Tins out took our speed out of the offense, and it showed in the result.

                            Ron is not the only player who does not like the coach calling every play (something Rick did a lot again in the playoffs) but he is the only one that is openly speaking of it.

                            I prefer a guy who wants the ball more to win, to a guy who wants the ball because he wants to shoot a fade-away.

                            Several times Al played black hole again and it showed in the minutes he played, they were far less then in the regular season, that tells you something I would think.

                            Ron had 6.3 Rpg in the po's , 5.3 in the reg season btw
                            So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ok, let's look at our options.....

                              Once again, nice post, Peck. Allow me to weight in on a couple of things. Able, I'll start with you:

                              I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.
                              There is no "might" to it. There were considerable issues with Ron behind the scenes this year. You assume because you saw an improvement in his on-court behavior that the behind the scenes stuff diminished commeasurately. Which is simply not true. Ron is a handful, and that's putting it kindly.

                              The million dollar question then would be: Is management fed up with babysitting and mollycoddling Ron? I don't know the answer to that...yet. But I've heard some things that point to yes. As I told Peck privately, I don't care how talented anyone is, life is too short to have to deal with anyone's BS indeterminately. After awhile, you just get tired of it. And both Walsh and Bird are no BS kind of guys.

                              As far as Al goes, diego made a compelling argument for trading for Dampier. I'm not convinced Walsh is the kind of person to go back in time, so to speak. Just a feeling I have. Although it wouldn't be a trade that surprises me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X