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

  • Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

    Four big questions seem to be the underlying focus of the "JO to Cavs Trade Proposal" thread. So, I've linked this threat to that one just so readers can get the full gist of the primus from which this thread originates.

    Seems to me that going into this upcoming season (if not up until draft day) TPTB need to answer four foundamental questions concerning JO's continued tenure with the team:

    1. Will he be healthy enough to compete for a large percentage of games (70 or more)?

    2. What will be his role coming into next season?

    3. Is the risk of retaining him worth the $44M dollar price tag ($23M if you trade him after next season)?

    4. How soon do TPTB want to return to "contender status" within the Central Division let alone the Eastern Conference and beyond?

    Here's my take on each of the above:
    • 1) No one has the answer to this question. All TPTB can do is instruct the player on those things they believe he needs to work on to get better and hope the player adheres to their instruction. It's still early in the off-season to make any kind of judgement call on how well JO is progressing in his off-season workouts, but by all accounts so far his rehab seems to be going better than expected. Now that JO has indicated his intensions not to opt out of his contract, the best thing TPTB can do is monitor his progress and keep the fans abreast of same.
    • 2) This is an intriguing question but believe it or not it's actually been answered by JO himself. It's apparent that in order for him to be successful next season he has to remain injury-free. That's a given. But there's another component to his short-term success that few have discussed and most have ignored and that is he has to be willing to accept a "partnership" role within the offense vice being placed "front-and-center" of the offense. JO has mentioned countless times that he's okay with not being the focus of the offense. 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. In JOB's Guard oriented offense, I think JO had a glimps of where he really fits in, such as being a shot-blocker, a passer out of the post and a decent mid-range scorer. I'd like to see him get to the rim more and I'm sure that will come with the improve stability of his knee. Time will tell just how much of his former self he can regain.
    • 3) This is the sticking point for most fans. For those with the view point that he hasn't earned his keep, I'd urge you to look at his stats of the last fives years since signing his 7-yr, $126.5M contract ('03-04) and tell me what you see. For me, I see only one year during this timeframe where JO didn't avg. at least 19 ppg (19.5 over the last 5 yrs; 20.97 if you exclude last season's avg of 13.6 ppg). And considering that he has failed to reach 19 ppg only twice during his entire tenure with the Pacers, it's hard to argue that he hasn't earned his keep to some extent even after factoring in all the games he's been out due to injury or suspensions (brawl year, '04-05). Still, I see everyone's point when they argue that $126M for a player who isn't a "takeover the game" type wasn't worth it. Two things you have to remember, however: a) JO was very young when he signed that contract; and b) his potential was clearly evident coming off two years where he was the team's leading shot blocker (franchise best 200+ ('01-02), was voted "Most Improved Player" and was voted to his first All-Star team ('02-03). How could you not lock the guy up for the long haul? I'm not saying he was worth a max contract - only the MJ's and Kobe's of the world are worth that much and even with those guys you're still taking one huge risk because you never know how things will turn out - but I believe that if Walsh wanted to keep him , thereby keeping such talent off the open market, he had to make JO an offer he just couldn't refuse and a max contract was it!
    • 4) To answer this last question, TPTB need only decide which financial angle they wish to pursue. The "short-term cost savings" is to throw JO away and take whatever they can get in short-term contracts and draft picks. Of course, this will mean starting over as many have suggested and not being in the enviable position to contend for a title for quite some time. My view is you're in no better position under this notion than you are currently. Whether it's one huge contract for 2-yrs or several for one year, you're still spending $44M. You're just forcing the "rebuilding process" a year or two sooner, but you're still searching for the right pieces either way it goes. Why not include JO among the core pieces since you know the potential is still there and build around that core? Otherwise, you're forced to find that dominate post player either through the draft where you'll have to wait to see how his development turns out or you get that player through FA which may not cost you another long-term contract but you're very likely to have to continue tweaking your roster every 2-3 yrs. What was that word many of you like to throw out there...mediocrity? Sometimes buying a championship works ofwhich this year the Celtics may have just demonstrated how best to go about doing it. But most times you end up with a bust. (See the 4-HOFer Lakers team for details)
    I understand where most of you are coming from. As a Pacers fan it's hard to see them come so close and yet be so far away from the big prize. I remain in the camp that says "retool" vice "rebuild". I'd rather they take their shot within two years instead of five or more and be stuck in...what's that word again?...mediocrity...until my grandchildren are old enough to play ball. (And mind you, they're 1, 3 and 4 now.)

    Let the bebate begin anew...
    Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-11-2008, 10:58 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

    not sure how we can compete in 5 years let alone 2 with the way the team is currently assembled. the pacers need to rebuild, which means ridding ourselves of jo, tinsley, foster, or basically anybody on our roster who can help us gain long-term assets. the pacers have been "mediocre" to bad for the better part of 30 years. continuing to draft between 10-25 will get us nowhere.
    Last edited by croz24; 06-09-2008, 03:57 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

      JO doesn't have a very long future with us regardless. Hopefully if we can't get rid of him this year then we can get some young guys and draft picks for him next year for his expiring contract.

      "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

        I agree with everything you said. The problem with the fans perception of him is that these nagging injuries have taken 4 of his best years away. So they only faintly remember the 24 year old 7 footer who was a game changer at the defensive end, and had a developing offensive game. At the time they signed this deal there was noone who was against it. JO has been 3rd in the MVP voting before, so it's hard to say it was a huge mistake to give him this money.

        Noone can project injury problems, and before this deal he had none. The guy played 8 years in the NBA with no injury problems, now he has some, and people label him injury prone. It doesn't make sense to me. I think JO has had some bad luck regarding his health over the last few years. But that doesn't make him a lost cause that I would give away for anything half way descent. If he had torn up both his knees I would understand, but he has had shoulder and muniscus injuries that will not affect his career in the long run.

        JO can be a huge part of this turnaround if he can get healthy, which he can do. Maybe he has to slim down a little, play 30 minutes a night instead of 35-40 and take a reduced offensive role to do so. But we won't get anything in a trade that will help us win games more than he will if he can get healthy.

        I view him as a low risk at this point. This is a turning point for us. Last year the offers we got were garbage because he had 60+ million coming to him. This year the offers will get a little better since he's only due 44.5 million. And next year the offers wil get substationally better because he'll be a viewed as a "one year see what happens" type of addition. 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.

        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.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

          Considering the two teams in the NBA Finals right now don't have
          dominant post players, I'm not so sure that's the priority concern
          at this point.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

            I think the keys are having good to great defenders at all 5 starting positions, and at least 2 of your backups. To go with that, you need at least two scorers and two shooters in your starting 5 (one player can be both, like Paul Pierce, I view a scorer as someone who can score 1-on-1, be it from the outside, midrange, or low post).

            Finally, if you can out-rebound your opponent the majority of the time, I think you have what you need to give yourself a great shot at competing for a title.

            What do we have right now?

            Shooters? Well, we do, but none that I feel extremely comfortable with. Dunleavy, Granger, and Murphy all shot well this year. Stephen Graham had great %'s but I don't know how badly they would drop if he played more minutes, so I'll leave him off the list.

            So shooters, at least in this offense, we do have with Mike, Danny, and Troy.

            Scorers? Now here I think the cupboard is pretty bare. I used to think Marquis could be that guy (at least off the bench), but now i have serious doubts.

            Mike and Danny and even Troy a little bit at the end, showed flashes of this, but none of them are what you're looking for here.

            We badly need some scorers. Now, if Jermaine O'Neal is here, he's a scorer (albeit not a great one given his FG%), but he's undependable and like I said doesn't have a great FG%, especially for a big man.

            If you could trade two of those four guys (Mike, Danny, Troy, JO) for two players who legitimately can score the ball well, I think that would help our offense tremendously.

            Also, look for Danny to improve as a scorer next year, just not enough to be one of our big guns in that department. It'll help, but we need to bring in guys who are better at it.

            Now, defense (good to great).

            I'd say Danny's good, Jeff's good, Diener's bad, Troy fluxuates between bad and average, and Mike is pretty average. That's just not good enough.

            The odds of the two players you trade for (two shooters for two scorers) being good or great defenders is pretty slim, so we're really hurting here.

            Rebounding looked good early in the year, but as the season went on we ended up (for the season) averaging 2 LESS rebounds per game than our opponents.

            Jeff helps you board (8.7), Mike helps you board (5.2), Danny helps you board (6.1). Diener doesn't and JO slumped this year with 6.7 as a big man. He could go back up to 8+, but again even if he does, JO is not dependable.

            Varajao remains appealing to me because he'd bring defense and rebounding, which we need more of, but he alone wouldn't solve that.

            I'd say if you could turn JO into (like that one rumor suggested) Varajao and Wally, you've gained another shooter to go with a defender/rebounder, which helps and allows you to trade at least two of your shooters for either scorers or defenders.

            I don't see any way we can get everything we need in one summer, but if we could at least turn JO and a couple of our shooters into some scorers or defenders, it'd make us look a good deal better next year. Easier said than done, I'm afraid.

            Hopefully we draft a player who can defend or score as well. Makes Westbrooke sound more appealing that Augustine, actually. But he's not a PG. Still, he'd be valuable if he can defend well regardless of which position he plays at.

            If/when our salary cap dips a bit in a few years, then through free agency you could probably get 1 or 2 decent, not great, players who can score or defend.

            If we get some good fortune for a change, I can see things changing substantially within 3 years or less, but it won't be easy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

              i hate to keep asking this, but when was the last time jo's value was on the rise? fact is, his value has only decreased due to "what ifs". 3 yrs ago pacers fans were laughing at the idea of jo for bosh or jo for howard. 2yrs ago it was jo + for kg or jo for picks and nice young players. last year many were laughing at not getting BOTH bynum AND odom. now we're hoping for small contracts and a mid-late first or plan on eating the contract...smaller contracts that expire in a year or two are much easier to use as trade bait than a $20 million contract. and any sort of 1st round pick or young player in return is much better than the nothing you'd receive by keeping jo...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post



                Whether it's one huge contract for 2-yrs or several for one year, you're still spending $44M.
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                  Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                  i hate to keep asking this, but when was the last time jo's value was on the rise? fact is, his value has only decreased due to "what ifs". 3 yrs ago pacers fans were laughing at the idea of jo for bosh or jo for howard. 2yrs ago it was jo + for kg or jo for picks and nice young players. last year many were laughing at not getting BOTH bynum AND odom. now we're hoping for small contracts and a mid-late first or plan on eating the contract...smaller contracts that expire in a year or two are much easier to use as trade bait than a $20 million contract. and any sort of 1st round pick or young player in return is much better than the nothing you'd receive by keeping jo...
                  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'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.
                    Odom was offered but Bynum was never on the table.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                      1. Will he be healthy enough to compete for a large percentage of games (70 or more)?

                      Not likely, unless he can play in a vacuum. Keep in mind he has sat out for extended periods for other injuries in addition to the knee (e.g. ankle, shoulder, etc.). Combine that with the fact that anyone over 30 knows it becomes easier to get injured, the odds are not high he can make 70 games.

                      2. What will be his role coming into next season?

                      Good question. I hope he starts because he is one of our best players merely on defense alone. But I hope his role is to rebound and defend and get garbage baskets only.

                      3. Is the risk of retaining him worth the $44M dollar price tag ($23M if you trade him after next season)?

                      Not sure if I get this question. I think it's risky to retain anyone with his injury history. 44M compounds it. I think if we do not trade him this summer, the result will be no value or a decent bump in value...by the time he is moved...so I do think it's more likely his value moves up or down from here.

                      4. How soon do TPTB want to return to "contender staus" within the Central Division let alone the Eastern Conference and beyond?

                      Tomorrow, but ain't happening. We are not bad enough to get a superstar in the draft and our management is unproven...and that's being kind.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        i've put a proposal similar to this on the forum before. i really think jo to portland would work great for both parties involved. portland has the depth, young players, and expiring contracts to offer in return while jo would fit in well with oden and aldridge. portland was craving gasol earlier in the year, so i don't see why they wouldn't take a small 2 year gamble on jo. jo likes portland, the portland fans like jo. even if jo is a "bust" in portland, his contract expires right as oden, aldridge, and roy are up for extentions so it wouldn't hurt them cap wise. if he succeeds, they could obviously resign him for $10-15mil/yr seeing as the blazers still have the richest owner in sports.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                          Odom was offered but Bynum was never on the table.
                          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.
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            You never mentioned JO wanting to play for a contender...
                            Didn't think it was relevant. I don't think JO has a "no-trade clause". So, mgmt doesn't have to trade him to a contender. They can send him wherever they want as long as the trade meet CBA guidelines. Sending him to a contender at this point is merely a "gentleman's agreement" which JO hopes Bird/Morway uphold.

                            ...or his and Bird's problem relationship. I think these are both big questions that have to be answered.
                            Again, I didn't think this was as relevant as the other issues. Besides, when it comes down to it JO is a contract employee. As long as both sides are adhering to said contract it doesn't matter whether JO likes his boss or not. Unless he wants to make a specticle of himself and cause legal problems, JO's got to honor his contract either until he is release from it (traded) or it expires, whichever comes first. Nonetheless, his relationship w/Bird is important and was briefly touched upon in both the "JO to Cavs trade..." and the "JO SportingNews Interview" threads.

                            (BTW, thanks for the thumbs up.)
                            Last edited by NuffSaid; 06-09-2008, 11:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Four Big Questions Surround JO's Future w/Pacers

                              I think the Hornets and Celtics proved you could turn things around fairly quick. That being said , I'm not sure if the Pacers are willing to do something that extreme. I've heard a lot of words spewed from J.O's mouth. I haven't seen any action to back up those words in the past several seasons. Each injury J.O. gets takes him longer and longer to recover. I'm still not convinced he will be anything different this next season , that he hasn't been in the past 3 or so years.

                              I really just don't see this team being any better than the past 2 seasons even if J.O. is healthy for most the season. If the Pacers don't make any real moves this off season then I don't think you'll see much improvement.
                              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X