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

Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

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

  • #16
    Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
    I would've gladly taken either Odom or Bynum at that point. I knew there was no way LA would give up that combo for JO. We were just asking too much. Even the rumored combo with Jefferson and filler from NJ last summer (assuming it was not just a rumor) should have been an automatic pull the trigger. When you have a chance to unload an unreliable guy who's likely past his prime performance days for a solid player you do the deal.


    If that overloads you at a certain position, then you try to move someone else.

    I was all for this trade last year. My feeling was Jefferson could be moved for other parts, but most posters on various boards couldn't see the trees for the forest. Either all they saw was bringing in another SF when the Pacers had a glut of them, or the same old song and dance, "JO is worth more than that." There was nothing saying the Pacers had to keep Jefferson, and it got value back for JO.

    Then JO opened his mouth which I felt killed the deal. JO didn't want to go to the Nets was the bottom line.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

      Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
      Yes. We were reportedly seeking both. If true, that was ludicrous. We should have taken Odom when we had the chance. I'm sure they'd have laughed in our face for simply JO for Bynum straight up.
      The more I've thought about it, I'm glad we didn't do this deal. In the short time JO came back last year, he really anchored our interior defense. I can't stand Lamar Odom. At least JO's defense and shot-blocking are constants, even when his shot isn't falling. When Odom is bad, he's really good at being bad.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

        I think the only real question that applies is "when to trade him". I contend that his trade value will start to rise as he gets into the last two years of his contract. Are the Pacers patient enough to wait it out and are most of the fans willing to wait until JO's trade value reached its highest point. I certainly hope so and if that means the franchise is more or less "on hold" for almost two seasons, then so be it, because what the do with JO is the most important decision that will be made.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

          The issue for Indiana is bigger than JO - it's that they haven't fully embraced an identity as a franchise. A direction and style of playe they will stick to for the long haul, not just a couple of seasons.

          In Boston you got the grit. Where team unity and the Celtic way is bigger than any player. Where history is always hanging over the door. Where iconic players are a must. They are successful they have embraced that - from the 60s, the 80s and now. Bad times were when they just were trying anything. No they didn't have the stars but they were trying uptempo, or young guys, or tanking for picks. Got to just going for broke with stars and they are back again. 16 titles.

          With LA, you know you are going to get exciting, uptempo basketball. They draft players for style, acquire coaches, make trades - everything is done in a Hollywood manner. 14 titles.

          For SA, they have embodied the style and class of their franchise player Davd Robinson and it trickled down to Popovich and Duncan. Now, its impossible to imagine the Spurs not having a roster where character isn't important, where they play a defensive style game and excel in the mental aspect. 4 titles.

          Detroit always is at their best with their lunchpale, hardnose mentality that is embraced by their fan base. Where after they knock you down they are more likely to spit on you than help you up. 3 titles.

          Whats more, everyone knows what to expect when they go to these franchises - from top on down, regardless of coach or star, they know what it means to play "Celtics/Lakers/Pistons Basketball". To exert that will on a team.

          For short period of times, other franchises attached themselves to a style and had success - Knicks under Riley/JVG, Miami under Riley/everyone he threw under a buss, Sac under Adelman, Phoenix under D'Antoni until Kerr got there. For the Pacers to find success they need to match a vision with the ideals of ownership and their fanbase and then make every player, coaching, and management move to support that. If not, it will be forever mediocrity. For a while, with Reggie in his prime the Pacers had it but that style has gone far to the wayside.

          So back to JO - Indiana needs to come to a hard line of figuring what style of play and what direction they want their franchise to be - not in 1 or 2 years, but in 10 years and then move JO for pieces that gets them in that direction.
          Last edited by 2Cleva; 06-10-2008, 10:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I think the only real question that applies is "when to trade him". I contend that his trade value will start to rise as he gets into the last two years of his contract. Are the Pacers patient enough to wait it out and are most of the fans willing to wait until JO's trade value reached its highest point. I certainly hope so and if that means the franchise is more or less "on hold" for almost two seasons, then so be it, because what the do with JO is the most important decision that will be made.
            It will only rise if he plays. If he doesn't play, then essentially he'll be a bigger Theo Ratliff, but Ratliff had to be dealt with valuable assets (Jefferson, two first round picks, Gomes & Green) to get Garnett.

            The question is "What are we going to turn that expiring contract into?"

            It's highly unlikely that we'll be in a position to make a mega-turn-it-all-around deal like Boston made. What assets do we have to pair with JO to bring back major talent? Outside of Danny (good value) and Junior (fair value), all of our players outside of JO have huge question marks. They either have negative value due to contracts & issues (Tinsley, Murphy), or they're young and unproven, but have lost just enough of that "young guy" lustre to have minimal value (Williams, Diogu). What star or superstar is going to want to come back here to a team that likely nobody to pair with him?

            Last summer, I was solidly in the Odom & Bynum both for JO. I expected JO to come back and be a 20-10-3 guy and felt, as buck says here:

            Originally posted by unclebuck
            what the(y) do with JO is the most important decision that will be made
            I believed the team had plenty of time to make a bad trade, so when we held out all summer for a favorable one, I was fine with it. However, I knew it was a gamble due to his injury history, and unfortunately, the worst case scenario played out.

            Many have been advancing the theory that JO's value would rise as he got closer to the end of his contract. This is consistent with holding a stock when it is down on the assumption that it will rebound and either mitigate your loss or turn an actual profit.

            But what if this is more like a plane that's lost it's engine than a stock? There's a very real possibility that JO's value is on a steep decline that will terminate with a smoking hole in the ground 100 yards short of the runway. If this is the case, isn't it wiser to grab the parachute and jump sooner rather than later?

            Now, I'm not saying that we do a panic move like the JO & 11 for expirings only that was debunked earlier. However, I believe we should be prepared to move JO this summer if we can find a deal to our liking. I told you what my price was last year. This year, it's dropped to a decent size expiring, one or two solid to good young prospects, a solid vet, and maybe a pick. I think the Chicago rumors (speculation, if you prefer) are solidly in my price range. (Not pretending I have any say in the matter, just using this phrasing to demonstrate what I, personally, would be satisfied with at this point for JO.)

            Again, I do not believe that JO's value will automatically rise as his contract gets shorter. I think he will have to play, relatively injury free and effectively, for it to increase. A repeat of this past year will cause it to nearly evaporate.
            Last edited by count55; 06-10-2008, 10:33 AM. Reason: clarification

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              JO can be a huge part of this turnaround if he can get healthy, which he can do.
              The Pacers have already invested years in waiting for him to get healthy. How much longer do you want to wait?

              Or, if he gets healthy and has a good year next year he could be viewed as a "final piece to make a serious run" to any team in contention.
              Okay, now which is it? Are we hoping he gets healthy in orderr to play him, or to trade him?

              We'll go from getting someone like Hinrich or VC to getting a young budding superstar and a couple descent role players and draft picks, IMO.
              Here is the part that confuses me when people talk about potential trades getting better. What team, that would be just one piece away from contending, is going to gut their team by putting together enough contracts of QUALITY players that the Pacers would be interested in, in order to get O'Neal?

              Remember, they would be getting him to make a title run, so they won't want to give up core players, but the salaries have to match. Also remember that the Pacers (like any team) can only have so many players on their roster.

              So, how does that work? Got any examples of teams that can put together salaries/players to match that would not tear apart what they are trying to build. (Remember, as well, the Pacers have to be interested in the players)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                So, how does that work? Got any examples of teams that can put together salaries/players to match that would not tear apart what they are trying to build. (Remember, as well, the Pacers have to be interested in the players)
                Chicago, because of their good fortune in the draft lottery, is the only one that leaps immediately to mind. They've got contracts (or potential contracts) with Hinrich and Gordon on players we'd probably like, a contract on a guy we wouldn't be wild about (Hughes), an expiring in Gooden, a young guy (that may be Ike, part deux) in Thomas, so they could package something without gutting their team...if if they thought JO was worth the risk.

                Other than that, putting together the $17.2mm or so they'd need to meet the 125% + $100k provision is going to be tough for most teams.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                  Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post

                  Sending him to a contender at this point is merely a "gentleman's agreement" which JO hopes Bird/Morway uphold.
                  You mean sort of like how Bird said he wasn't going to fire Isiah?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Nice thread and post. I am not sure about this part tho.

                    If you take the 21mil JO is owed next season and split it up into 2 or more contracts and one of them is a major expiring, how are you still spending 44mil?

                    If you would trade JO with his 21.3mil salary to Portland for

                    Webster-----3.8
                    JJ-----------3.1(expiring)
                    LaFrentz----12.7(expiring)

                    Total-------19.6 mil

                    That leaves 1.7 mil savings for the Pacers in 08/09.

                    Webster 09/10 salary is 5 mil vs JO's 23 mil. That means a savings of 18 mil. So how are you still spending 44mil? I count a savings of 19.7 mil which deducted from 44mil is only 23.3 mil not 44mil.

                    This trade is not anything I'm advocating, but just used as an example.


                    You never mentioned JO wanting to play for a contender, or his and Bird's problem relationship. I think these are both big questions that have to be answered.
                    That would be an awesome trade for the Pacers. It doesn't make any sense for Portland though (not that you said it did). If that was a possibility you'd be absolutely right.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                      WARNING - RANT ON

                      However, many of us still remember that private meeting he had w/RC on the heels of that lose against the Celtics 2-yrs ago where he all but demanded the ball.
                      100% wrong, not even close. Sorry for the tone but this has been disproven strongly many times over and just won't die as a rumor.

                      JO TOOK NO MORE FGA after the "demand" than he was before the demand. What I think he ranted about was the horrid "running" that the team stunk at and how he was being asked to play the HIGH POST instead of the low block. If it was about "give me the ball" then he would have touched it more, and he didn't. Heck, pre-rarnt the ball touched him every play, just in a spot on the floor that emphasized his weak points.

                      The result was that his FTA were WAY down (about 50% IIRC) and his FG% was suffering. People talk about how terrible he is about fades and jumpers, but the "running game" with him in the high post demanded that this be his primary shot.

                      He was 100% right to say "look, I'm better in the low post and this team doesn't have guys that are good at running anyway, this is a big fubar".

                      So after that point his FTA jumped back up as did his points per shot (obviously), but his FGA did not. You're back to getting free points and slowing down the aggressiveness of the other team's frontline due to foul concerns.


                      JO has faults, but being displeased with the crap forced down Rick's throat by Bird was not one of them. That roster had no business trying to run. Dunleavy is 3 times the open court guy that Jackson is, and I like Jack.

                      Also Tinsley as a full court guy is ridiculously out of whack. It's never been true. Tins is an amazing half court passer and dribble penetration guy, not a 3 on 2 to dunk guy. You'd get he and Jack right on top of each other on a break rather than spacing and staggering appropriately. 1 defender was able to hold off 3 Pacers and you'd just shake your head and say "This is fun!"



                      RANT OFF - Sorry Nuff, it's not personal at all. It's only that point, not that you said it. The "JO rant" is a hot button for me, obviously.
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-10-2008, 12:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                        You never mentioned JO wanting to play for a contender, or his and Bird's problem relationship. I think these are both big questions that have to be answered.
                        There's the issue I think. I'm not sure Dunleavy or JO are being valued rationally by Bird, one over and one under.

                        I think a Dun to Portland deal could be done and could get you back into round 1. You could go after a SG prospect and a big with those 2 picks, then feel more comfortable to move JO (say to CHI for Hinrich package, or elsewhere if PORT gives you Jack). You've got a PG, salary broken into more tradable pieces for the future, a young SG that can defend and drive (Westbrook), a young prospect big (several could be on the board at PORT's pick, and you are in full-on rebuild with clear direction.

                        Hinrich running PG for that team would be similar to Andre leading the young Philly team. Dre is a great defender of course, but the main idea is that Iggy was the star and Dre was just the vet point. Here it would be Danny.

                        Regardless I don't think we can reasonably expect a huge jump next season, so moves like this are hardly setbacks. Unfortunately I think Bird and TPTB don't even consider putting Dun out there because fans love him and Bird can't wait to dump JO at nearly all costs (with Donnie out of the way).

                        But what if this is more like a plane that's lost it's engine than a stock? There's a very real possibility that JO's value is on a steep decline that will terminate with a smoking hole in the ground 100 yards short of the runway. If this is the case, isn't it wiser to grab the parachute and jump sooner rather than later?
                        No. Because there is a reason his deal does become more valuable, even to the Pacers itself. EXPIRING. This is like not selling your broken plane until it becomes vintage or until spare parts become rare. The value point CHANGES. You are trying to look at it increasing in value for the same reason it currently has value, but that's not how it works. Right now it's not valuable as scrap and not valuable as a working version either.

                        Some junker buys it up cheap now, then in 5 years when he's got the only good replacement parts he makes a killing off your haste.

                        Teams will want to move players that are A) slightly overpriced and B) not working out as part of their own future plans. We won't be getting Kobe, but you might get a guy like Carter who at least plays. Or maybe even something unexpected like an aging Nash if PHX continues to slide and wants to overhaul sooner than Nash's deal ends; maybe Kerr wants a defensive team and defensive PG instead.
                        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-10-2008, 01:16 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                          Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                          You mean sort of like how Bird said he wasn't going to fire Isiah?
                          Yep. You got it, dude.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Sorry Nuff, it's not personal at all. It's only that point, not that you said it. The "JO rant" is a hot button for me, obviously.
                            None taken. Actually, I'm glad you chimed in on this very issue because it emphasizes question #2 perfectly. Everyone from the coach, player, teammates, mgmt - EVEYRONE! - needs to have a clear understanding of what JO's role will be in JOB's system, but first he has to be identified as part of the core. You do those two things, as well as clear up any misgivings JO and Bird have, then barring another injury I'd say you've got (some simbulance of) the JO of old back.

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            Here is the part that confuses me when people talk about potential trades getting better. What team, that would be just one piece away from contending, is going to gut their team by putting together enough contracts of QUALITY players that the Pacers would be interested in, in order to get O'Neal?

                            Remember, they would be getting him to make a title run, so they won't want to give up core players, but the salaries have to match. Also remember that the Pacers (like any team) can only have so many players on their roster.

                            So, how does that work? Got any examples of teams that can put together salaries/players to match that would not tear apart what they are trying to build. (Remember, as well, the Pacers have to be interested in the players)
                            The only team I can think of that fit that description is the Lakers of today. They were poised to make a run at the title and went out and got Paul Gasol w/o giving up any of their core players or essential bench players. Another team that came close was the Utah Jazz when they traded for Kyle Kover. You can't put the Suns in that category because they gave up Shawn Marion - a player I felt was a big part of that team's success - and took a huge gamble in acquiring Shaq.

                            Point very well taken. It is the inverse of question #4. The gaining team would have to be absolutely, 100% sure of their chances to win w/JO in such a trade. The Pacers then would have to concede that they can't win w/JO and that they are in a rebuilding process. To that, you can be sure Bird/Morway won't take back players that aren't in the team's best interest either short- or long-term. Which brings us right back to the issue of money: do you trade JO just to gain some short-term financial flexibility or do you keep him and incorporate him into the "core" even if it's short-term (2 yrs) and build around that core? This very question is now the focus of my upcoming thread, "Identity Crisis: What Is Pacers' Basketball?", and I have 2Cleva to thank for it.
                            Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-10-2008, 04:52 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              WARNING - RANT ON


                              100% wrong, not even close. Sorry for the tone but this has been disproven strongly many times over and just won't die as a rumor.

                              JO TOOK NO MORE FGA after the "demand" than he was before the demand. What I think he ranted about was the horrid "running" that the team stunk at and how he was being asked to play the HIGH POST instead of the low block. If it was about "give me the ball" then he would have touched it more, and he didn't. Heck, pre-rarnt the ball touched him every play, just in a spot on the floor that emphasized his weak points.

                              The result was that his FTA were WAY down (about 50% IIRC) and his FG% was suffering. People talk about how terrible he is about fades and jumpers, but the "running game" with him in the high post demanded that this be his primary shot.

                              He was 100% right to say "look, I'm better in the low post and this team doesn't have guys that are good at running anyway, this is a big fubar".

                              So after that point his FTA jumped back up as did his points per shot (obviously), but his FGA did not. You're back to getting free points and slowing down the aggressiveness of the other team's frontline due to foul concerns.


                              JO has faults, but being displeased with the crap forced down Rick's throat by Bird was not one of them. That roster had no business trying to run. Dunleavy is 3 times the open court guy that Jackson is, and I like Jack.

                              Also Tinsley as a full court guy is ridiculously out of whack. It's never been true. Tins is an amazing half court passer and dribble penetration guy, not a 3 on 2 to dunk guy. You'd get he and Jack right on top of each other on a break rather than spacing and staggering appropriately. 1 defender was able to hold off 3 Pacers and you'd just shake your head and say "This is fun!"



                              RANT OFF - Sorry Nuff, it's not personal at all. It's only that point, not that you said it. The "JO rant" is a hot button for me, obviously.
                              Because I'm bored at the moment and have nothing better to do I feel the need to respond to this.

                              Just because you believe that something is not true does not mean that it has been disproven at all.

                              The facts of the matter are these.

                              1. A reporter for the star (Wells) reported that he heard a loud discussion/argument after a loss to the Boston Celtics.

                              2. The reporter later states on radio that the discussion that he overheard was about the offensive direction of the team from O'Neal and Carlisle.

                              3. When questioned about the incident O'Neal did not deny the conversation but he did not disclose the nature of the talk.

                              4. Peck nor Naptown Seth were anywhere near this conversation, so neither has an actual clue as to what was said or the context in which it was said.

                              5. The Indiana Pacers were 4-4 at that point in time.

                              Ok, those are facts that I believe that neither of us can disagree with.

                              Now here is where we can agree to go our seperate ways.

                              1. While J.O.'s shots did not increase, soon after said conversation, our entire offense changed. The % of the times that the ball went through O'Neal increased.

                              2. Jermaine O'Neal is NOT good enough to dictate the role of an entire team. That of course is my opinion and I'm sure you will not agree and that is fine. But we are not talking Michael Jordan, Shaq or even LaBron here. We are talking about a player who at the top of his game is a 20 & 10 guy. Nothing to sneeze at but also not something that allows you to dictate to a coach, GM, owners how an entire team should play.

                              3. We were .500% at the time he had his conversation. We were not 2-6 or even 3-5. We were .500 and we were working in a new offense and a new starting lineup. You don't think that maybe just maybe he shouldn't have given it more time?

                              Also this was about Jermaine O'Neal getting his, pure and simple. Do you believe that if J.O. was getting enough shots a game and we were losing that he would march into the office and say "hey, this isn't working. Why don't we run some plays so that Danny can more open looks". No, I don't think so either.

                              Your not the only one has this as a hot button issue. I feel as strongly as you do about this, I just feel the exact opposite.

                              It is not up to the player to dictate to the team how the team will play. Let me say that again with the correct emphasis.

                              It is not up to the player to dictate to the TEAM how the TEAM will play.

                              J.O.'s rant ended up putting Danny on the bench, getting his buddy Harrington ultimately benched and disgruntled and at the end of the day traded.

                              But hey, at least J.O. did not ever have to say he was a center in all of that time. Remember he required that Al be listed as the center. Why was that exactly?

                              Jermaine O'Neal knows better than Bird, Carlisle and Walsh on how the team should play? Odd, I thought one was a respected coach, one was a respected G.M. who knew all and that the other was a legend on the court.

                              But hey, I guess scoring 55 points against a team with no interior defense will allow you to dictate how the entire team should play.

                              In closing I bring you the gift and the high brow entertainment of


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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
                                The only team I can think of that fit that description is the Lakers of today. They were poised to make a run at the title and went out and got Paul Gasol w/o giving up any of their core players or essential bench players. Another team that came close was the Utah Jazz when they traded for Kyle Kover.
                                I might agree with the Utah comparison (I don't remember exactly all the players involved), but in the case of Memphis, they were in a salary dump mode with the idea of selling the team being the driving force.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X