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

Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

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

  • Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

    I intended to post this a few weeks ago, but I was so focused on writing the draft profiles that I put it on the backburner.

    Obviously, some of the luster of what the contest could have been is over, as we've made some major moves already last week. However, it appears as if there are still several holes to fill, and decisions to be made affecting next season and beyond, with many choices and possibilities available. I think we all know what the issues and problems are with the roster, but the question is, what is the best masterplan of action in order to solve them the best we can so we can be in the best condition for now and in the future?

    This thread can involve trades we might make with one or numerous teams, outright signings of unrestricted free agents, or "sign and trade" deals. It can involve players you'd like to see invited to training camp as non roster invitees as well, along with players you might choose to manuever for in the summer of 2009.

    For the purposes of this contest, please make sure your ideas are well thought out, make sense for all the teams involved, and fit under the rules of the collecting bargaining agreement.

    We will call the contest over on July 13th, giving us a chance to discuss the various plans if we wanted at the forum meet on July 12 to help determine who had the best overall plan. In reality, you should have your plan in place and posted before the moratorium on signings ends on July 9th.

    Even if you choose to not post an official "masterplan", feel free to comment on the ideas of others.....maybe we all will learn something from the dialogue that we hadn't considered before.

    Since I am the thread starter, I will go first.

    Step one for me is to try and figure a way out of the Jamal Tinsley mess. I don't see the Simon's paying Tinsley over 20 million to play elsewhere, and I am dubious of media claims of Tinsley having knee injuries so serious as to force his retirement, just as I am at the idea the Pacers will pay him off instead of at least attempting to use him somehow in a deal with a desperate club.

    Of course, it will take a desperate club to try and take on Tinsley, a team with no other good options at the point guard position is the only way this could work. We'd need to find a team so dysfunctional and traditionally screwed up that they'd be willing to take this kind of gamble. Fortunately, such a team does exist: The LA Clippers! Here is the first move:

    1. The Clippers sign and trade wingman Quinton Ross to a 3 year, 18 million dollar contract and trade him to Indiana for PG Jamal Tinsley and cash considerations.

    You all knew I'd try and figure out a way to get a premier wing defender to us, and I chose my favorite one, Quinton Ross, to come to Indiana. By all accounts, it appears that the Clippers have no interest in bringing Ross back to LA, so it makes sense that they might choose to get something for him, albeit something as flawed as Tinsley is. But, the Clippers have the worst point guard situation in the league, with little other options as good as Tinsley could potentially be. Getting cash from us is a nice bribe for the penny pinching Donald Sterling. For us, this is a great opportunity to add a great wing defender, freeing up Danny Granger to not have to guard the opponents best wing player all the time. We don't save any money in total here, but it doesnt cost us any either, and we get a very productive, important role player to add to our rotation.

    Step 2 for me would be to get a potential solution at power forward, without risking the entire team's future to do so. For a while now I've been trying to figure out a way to acquire Josh Smith, who I really like. However, If he turned down 11 million per year as reported, I can't see us having the available resources to pull off a sign and trade, or the willingness to make such a long term committment to him at this time.

    So, I've decided that I would pull the trigger on a much smaller, lower key deal that doesnt effect our salary structure so much. Here it is:

    The Pacers trade Jeff Foster to Denver.
    The Nuggets trade PF Linas Kleiza, C Stephen Hunter, and Charlotte's 2009 First round draft pick to Indiana.

    The Nuggets do this because they are in "win now" mode. This is Iverson's last year, and they need a replacement for Eduardo Najera, who is a free agent and likely to leave them. If they complete the trade I anticipate them making with Chicago involving Camby and Kirk Hinrich, Foster becomes a starter for them in the short run, and gives them an expiring deal as well if everything falls apart on them. Foster is perfect for the Nuggets, because he doesnt need the ball to be effective. With the gunners they have, that is very important!

    The Pacers get 2 main advantages from this deal. Kleiza is a potentially very nice player at the PF, one who Denver really likes. Getting him now gives us a year to evaluate him to see if he is part of our future or not. Hunter is just a thrown in, but is still a nice defensive center, giving us a "3 headed monster" of centers in Hibbert, Nesterovic, and Hunter for this one season.

    The main advantage of course is next year's first round draft pick, which Denver acquired from Charlotte last week. That pick will likely be in the lottery, so if everything would break our way we could have another very interesting draft night in 2009.

    Step 3 for me would be to shop Mike Dunleavy. I hate to do that, because Dunleavy is a fine, smart, hard working player who happens to be my Dad's favorite Pacer. But, we need to clear out some money here to be able to afford to keep Danny Granger long term, and we need a different mix I think of talents at our wing positions.....adding Rush in the draft and trading for Ross in this masterplan enables us to make a move like moving Dunleavy for additional help in other areas.

    The question then is, can you trade Dunleavy and get enough value for him to justify dealing him? I scoured the league's rosters, looking for a good matchup for him and his talents. Ideally, I was looking for young players, expiring contracts, and second round picks. I also wanted players with character and talent who would fit in to what we are trying to do here, both financially and in style of play.

    Here is the best deal I came up with:

    Indiana trades Mike Dunleavy to Portland
    Portland trades Channing Frye, Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw and a future second round draft pick to Indiana.

    This is a sensible deal for both teams I think. Portland has to make at some point a 3 for 1 type deal, as they have so many players on their roster they will be forced to lose them potentially for nothing. Dunleavy gives them an upgrade in terms of experience and basketball savvy, and his hidden strength of being able to feed the post will so well will be better utilized here, with Aldridge and Odon to feed the ball to. Dunleavy starts and really is a "glue guy" as their ideal 3rd or 4th best player.

    For Indiana, it is all about adding youthful talent while shedding salary. Frye and Webster are both good fits for us here, and have expiring contracts as well. Outlaw is a useful player who can play multiple positions if need be, and could be moved on fairly easily if the Pacers so desired.

    Step 4 for me would be to again add some rebounding and toughness to our team, which we lost with trading Jeff Foster earlier. I'd also like ot try and remove Marquis Daniels and Shawne Williams away from the roster, to continue our organizational culture change. Here is the best I could come up with:

    Indiana trades Stephen Graham, Shawne Williams, and Marquis Daniels to Cleveland.
    Cleveland trades Anderson Verajao and Damon Jones to Indiana.

    This trade helps the chemistry of both lockerrooms, and gives Cleveland additional cap space after the season in ridding themselves of Verajao, who is a much better fit in Indiana than Cleveland after these proposed moves. With a different atmosphere, maybe Shawne Williams reaches his potential in Cleveland.

    For Indiana it helps our rebounding, toughness, and energy level, sacrificing some 09 cap space in the process.

    Here is our 15 man roster now:

    PG: Ford, Jack, and Deiner
    Wings: Granger, Ross, Rush, Webster, Outlaw
    Posts: Verajao, Hibbert, Nesterovic, Murphy, Frye, Hunter, Kleiza.

    I'd trade Maceo Baston to a team under the cap for a future second round pick.
    I'd release McRoberts and Jones if I needed to to get to the 15 minimum.

    We also now have an extra first rounder, don't forget, in 2009, belonging to Charlotte. We also now have several expiring deals, with the flexibility that brings you. We are also extremely young.


    I realize that the Pacers in reality probably won't make that many changes/moves to the roster as I did in this exercise......which is why I probably won't be the winner of this contest! However, all of these moves I felt were realistic for both teams involved to make, and they all fit the rules of trading under the collective bargaining agreement.

    What is YOUR masterplan? Let your imaginations run wild........

    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-29-2008, 04:03 PM.

  • #2
    Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

    There's a flaw with your Clippers trade. One would think Mike has told his dad how horrible Tinsley really is.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

      T-Bird

      Who's going to score on your roster then? We'd be lock down defensively, but who's going to score? I think that's putting way too much on Danny with Dun Dun gone.

      Great ideas though.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

        I am more for the pragmatic approach.

        With all the worry about the cap, I would think most people would be happy holding onto our expiring contracts. Rasho, Foster, and Daniels should stay. I don't really see Mike's contract as a problem if we do that.

        I am not at all a fan of trading Mike right now because he was our second leading scorer and most consistent player. Trading him puts an aweful lot of pressure on Danny and especially Brandon to start producing right away.

        I think the problems with the frontcourt have been greatly exaggerated. Given JO's lackluster production when he played last year, I expect Hibbert's contributions to be something similar, except not injured half the year. Hibbert will be the defensive anchor Obrien wants, and you can run the offense through the post in the half court because Hibbert is excellent at passing out of double teams. I don't think we really lost anything as far as production goes from last year's frontcourt.

        Down the road we may want to upgrade the 4 spot, but I would also like to see what Shawne can do there. I don't think its an emergency either way.

        The only thing that really needs to be done is getting rid of Tinsley. I don't want to give up assets in a trade however. If he can't be traded for an eqaul contract, than just buy him out. His contract will come off the books the same time as Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford... So there will be lots of options at that point.

        I think it has been a succesful offseason and I hope Larry does not go overboard and make too many moves. I would like to see what we have. We aren't exactly competing for the championship next year.
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

          Originally posted by Phildog View Post
          T-Bird

          Who's going to score on your roster then? We'd be lock down defensively, but who's going to score? I think that's putting way too much on Danny with Dun Dun gone.

          Great ideas though.

          Well, obviously point production for this one season would be a potential issue. Hopefully, our much improved defense and depth would make up for some of the loss of firepower.

          But, just for fun, assume that to win 50 games, by the numbers, you need a team capable of averaging 98 points per game on average.

          I am assuming/hoping/counting on getting 20 points from Ford/Jack/Deiner at the point position.

          I am assuming/hoping/counting on Granger getting more shots and having more effectiveness not having to guard the other teams best player all the time. Let's give him 22 points per game by himself on average.

          I really like Webster as a potential scorer, coming off baseline screens and spacing the floor. I think playing for us the combination of Webster/Ross/Rush/Outlaw can get us 30 per night on average, with Outlaw probably playing as a big some of the time when the Pacers play super small.

          Now I need 26 points a night on average from my bigs. Lets give Hibbert 9ppg, trying to be realistic. I need 17 more.

          Verajao can get you 6 a night on putbacks and hustle plays. I need 11 points.

          Surely, Murphy and Kleiza can handle that, with the possibility that Kleiza may develop so well he gives you a bunch more production than you are expecting.

          So, we are to 98 ppg as a team, and because our defense is so much better, we should be able to win 45-48 games or so with this group, which gets into the playoffs in the weak East. Because we have Ross, we now have someone who can legitimately guard Rip Hamilton, Paul Pierce, and LeBron James without it being embarrasing. We'd have a shot to advance if everything fell perfectly. Then, next summer we'd have a monster amount of capspace to make a major move for a legitimate big time post scorer. If we couldnt attract one, we'd tinker with the roster and be major players for Chris Bosh or someone like that in the summer after next.

          In addition, we'd have 2 first round draft picks, including one likely to be in the lottery (Charlotte's, that we'd acquire from Denver theoretically in my trade above).

          Thats my thinking. Hopefully, others will have some even better ideas too.
          Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-29-2008, 07:13 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

            I would first of all buy out tinsley.

            Second of all, I would trade Marquis Daniels and 2 future 2nd rd picks to Chicago for drew gooden.

            I would sign Austin Croshere to the vet min.

            by the way, everyone who would like to get rid of Dunleavy, why not wait until next year? It gives Rush a year to learn and grow...and ease him into the sg spot, Dunleavy's value could increase (if he has another great year, or even better), and his contract will be 1 year shorter making him easier to trade.

            i would waive McRoberts



            and finally, i would invite Stanko to training camp!!!!


            sounds like a good offseason

            Ford/Jack/Diener
            Dun/b.Rush/
            Granger/Williams/Graham
            Gooden/Murph/Cro/baston
            Foster/Nesterovich/Hibbert
            that is a good looking team...not a championship level team...but a step in the right direction.
            Passion, Pride, Playoffs, Pacers

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

              The Pacers trade Williams, Grahm, and McRoberts to Milwaukee for C. Villanueva. The Pacers get a double-double guy who has a reasonable contract. The only thing is would Milwaukee do it?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                I don't think Foster has that much worth for Denver to do that and I am fine with waiting a year to get a much better deal at PF and having a better overview of our salary structure by letting some salaries expire and re-sign the players we want to re-sign.

                I also don't think the Clippers do that deal even with their disaster at PG. They still have all of the summer aswell to find a reasonable PG or a stop gap there or make a trade to improve their PG position. This would be their worstcase scenario I would say.

                Regards,

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

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                  Originally posted by eldubious View Post
                  The Pacers trade Williams, Grahm, and McRoberts to Milwaukee for C. Villanueva. The Pacers get a double-double guy who has a reasonable contract. The only thing is would Milwaukee do it?
                  No. They have absolutely no reason to do this trade.
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                    Step one for me is to try and figure a way out of the Jamal Tinsley mess. I don't see the Simon's paying Tinsley over 20 million to play elsewhere, and I am dubious of media claims of Tinsley having knee injuries so serious as to force his retirement, just as I am at the idea the Pacers will pay him off instead of at least attempting to use him somehow in a deal with a desperate club.

                    Of course, it will take a desperate club to try and take on Tinsley, a team with no other good options at the point guard position is the only way this could work. We'd need to find a team so dysfunctional and traditionally screwed up that they'd be willing to take this kind of gamble. Fortunately, such a team does exist: The LA Clippers! Here is the first move:

                    1. The Clippers sign and trade wingman Quinton Ross to a 3 year, 18 million dollar contract and trade him to Indiana for PG Jamal Tinsley and cash considerations.

                    You all knew I'd try and figure out a way to get a premier wing defender to us, and I chose my favorite one, Quinton Ross, to come to Indiana. By all accounts, it appears that the Clippers have no interest in bringing Ross back to LA, so it makes sense that they might choose to get something for him, albeit something as flawed as Tinsley is. But, the Clippers have the worst point guard situation in the league, with little other options as good as Tinsley could potentially be. Getting cash from us is a nice bribe for the penny pinching Donald Sterling. For us, this is a great opportunity to add a great wing defender, freeing up Danny Granger to not have to guard the opponents best wing player all the time. We don't save any money in total here, but it doesnt cost us any either, and we get a very productive, important role player to add to our rotation.

                    Step 2 for me would be to get a potential solution at power forward, without risking the entire team's future to do so. For a while now I've been trying to figure out a way to acquire Josh Smith, who I really like. However, If he turned down 11 million per year as reported, I can't see us having the available resources to pull off a sign and trade, or the willingness to make such a long term committment to him at this time.

                    So, I've decided that I would pull the trigger on a much smaller, lower key deal that doesnt effect our salary structure so much. Here it is:

                    The Pacers trade Jeff Foster to Denver.
                    The Nuggets trade PF Linas Kleiza, C Stephen Hunter, and Charlotte's 2009 First round draft pick to Indiana.

                    The Nuggets do this because they are in "win now" mode. This is Iverson's last year, and they need a replacement for Eduardo Najera, who is a free agent and likely to leave them. If they complete the trade I anticipate them making with Chicago involving Camby and Kirk Hinrich, Foster becomes a starter for them in the short run, and gives them an expiring deal as well if everything falls apart on them. Foster is perfect for the Nuggets, because he doesnt need the ball to be effective. With the gunners they have, that is very important!

                    The Pacers get 2 main advantages from this deal. Kleiza is a potentially very nice player at the PF, one who Denver really likes. Getting him now gives us a year to evaluate him to see if he is part of our future or not. Hunter is just a thrown in, but is still a nice defensive center, giving us a "3 headed monster" of centers in Hibbert, Nesterovic, and Hunter for this one season.

                    The main advantage of course is next year's first round draft pick, which Denver acquired from Charlotte last week. That pick will likely be in the lottery, so if everything would break our way we could have another very interesting draft night in 2009.

                    Step 3 for me would be to shop Mike Dunleavy. I hate to do that, because Dunleavy is a fine, smart, hard working player who happens to be my Dad's favorite Pacer. But, we need to clear out some money here to be able to afford to keep Danny Granger long term, and we need a different mix I think of talents at our wing positions.....adding Rush in the draft and trading for Ross in this masterplan enables us to make a move like moving Dunleavy for additional help in other areas.

                    The question then is, can you trade Dunleavy and get enough value for him to justify dealing him? I scoured the league's rosters, looking for a good matchup for him and his talents. Ideally, I was looking for young players, expiring contracts, and second round picks. I also wanted players with character and talent who would fit in to what we are trying to do here, both financially and in style of play.

                    Here is the best deal I came up with:

                    Indiana trades Mike Dunleavy to Portland
                    Portland trades Channing Frye, Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw and a future second round draft pick to Indiana.

                    This is a sensible deal for both teams I think. Portland has to make at some point a 3 for 1 type deal, as they have so many players on their roster they will be forced to lose them potentially for nothing. Dunleavy gives them an upgrade in terms of experience and basketball savvy, and his hidden strength of being able to feed the post will so well will be better utilized here, with Aldridge and Odon to feed the ball to. Dunleavy starts and really is a "glue guy" as their ideal 3rd or 4th best player.

                    For Indiana, it is all about adding youthful talent while shedding salary. Frye and Webster are both good fits for us here, and have expiring contracts as well. Outlaw is a useful player who can play multiple positions if need be, and could be moved on fairly easily if the Pacers so desired.

                    Step 4 for me would be to again add some rebounding and toughness to our team, which we lost with trading Jeff Foster earlier. I'd also like ot try and remove Marquis Daniels and Shawne Williams away from the roster, to continue our organizational culture change. Here is the best I could come up with:

                    Indiana trades Stephen Graham, Shawne Williams, and Marquis Daniels to Cleveland.
                    Cleveland trades Anderson Verajao and Damon Jones to Indiana.

                    This trade helps the chemistry of both lockerrooms, and gives Cleveland additional cap space after the season in ridding themselves of Verajao, who is a much better fit in Indiana than Cleveland after these proposed moves. With a different atmosphere, maybe Shawne Williams reaches his potential in Cleveland.

                    For Indiana it helps our rebounding, toughness, and energy level, sacrificing some 09 cap space in the process.

                    Here is our 15 man roster now:

                    PG: Ford, Jack, and Deiner
                    Wings: Granger, Ross, Rush, Webster, Outlaw
                    Posts: Verajao, Hibbert, Nesterovic, Murphy, Frye, Hunter, Kleiza.

                    I'd trade Maceo Baston to a team under the cap for a future second round pick.
                    I'd release McRoberts and Jones if I needed to to get to the 15 minimum.

                    We also now have an extra first rounder, don't forget, in 2009, belonging to Charlotte. We also now have several expiring deals, with the flexibility that brings you. We are also extremely young.


                    I realize that the Pacers in reality probably won't make that many changes/moves to the roster as I did in this exercise......which is why I probably won't be the winner of this contest! However, all of these moves I felt were realistic for both teams involved to make, and they all fit the rules of trading under the collective bargaining agreement.

                    What is YOUR masterplan? Let your imaginations run wild........

                    Tbird
                    1) I'd love to get Ross but I don't think we've got the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of actually finding a trade partner for Tinsley. I think the imminent buy out will chase off whatever scarce interest there might have been. Those guys, if they exist, can just await the inevitable and then run the JT risk on the cheap.

                    2) I think Kleiza would be a nice addition offensively at PF, not so much in the defense and rebounding I'd like to get out of a 4 though. Of course, the 1st rounder is the real prize. Do you think it can legitimately be commanded?

                    3) The Dunleavy deal even by itself I think has a pretty strong argument behind it financially. Not to mention a lot of young talent in a swingman and two frontcourt players who could both contribute at 4 in differing situations I think.

                    4) I understand the rationale but this is my least favorite part of the puzzle.

                    Without checking salaries, I would suggest a revision in light of IMO Tinsley's absolute untradeabilty.

                    I would strike part four and, finances permitting, somehow try to work those guys or some combination of them to the Clips. Hell, maybe they'd even consider Deiner if they're in that bad of a PG mess. The old Quis can play some point might still have a little burn or something. I'd also see about the possibility of getting Josh Powell back in the deal if that's even feasible.

                    If that's all we came away with I'd be content. The only downside is all the swingmen but the defensive niche is nice to have covered. Plus I don't think Powell would be a bad guy to throw into our PF rotation. Seemed like he had a decent baseline jumper, good bulk, and was willing to bang yet still athletic enough to play in an up and down system.

                    If that could work I'd proceed with parts two and three and whatever we get there is gravy. I just don't know about the Portland thing even with their supposed roster glut.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post

                      In addition, we'd have 2 first round draft picks, including one likely to be in the lottery (Charlotte's, that we'd acquire from Denver theoretically in my trade above).
                      charlotte's 2009 pick is lottery protected. the protection goes down by 2 every year, but still denver might not reasonably expect to obtain that pick until 2011 (unless the bobcats improve a lot more than i think they would).

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                        TBird-

                        Some interesting ideas. But it's too early to make a Duns to PORT
                        deal like that. With the improved defensive backcourt we should
                        have, we'll likely generate some additional transition offense off
                        of steals, deflections, etc. But I still wouldn't want to punt Duns
                        and his shooting prowess and ability to bring cohesion in the
                        halfcourt offense until we see how this group meshes and
                        what the new guys will bring to the table in the initial couple
                        months of the season when the live bullets are flying.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          charlotte's 2009 pick is lottery protected. the protection goes down by 2 every year, but still denver might not reasonably expect to obtain that pick until 2011 (unless the bobcats improve a lot more than i think they would).
                          I just used Charlotte's pick that they have in this deal because as I understand the rules in the CBA, Denver can't trade their own first pick in consecutive years, so the earliest Denver first rounder they could trade us would be 2010. I suppose we could make the draft pick a conditional one in 2010 (us getting the worst of the Charlotte/Denver selection for example), and maybe make Denver give us their 2009 second round pick too, or something similar.

                          I've also thought some of the other ideas in this thread have been good. Particularly, if we had to skip deal #4, I'd be fine with that, particularly if I needed to add some of the players I released (or Shawne even) to the Clippers deal to get them to take Tinsley.

                          Keep them coming!

                          Tbird

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                            Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                            in the initial couple months of the season when the live bullets are flying.
                            Now after the Jax and Tins era why would you want to use that term? We are trying to get a fresh start here
                            The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird's "Masterplan for summer of 2008" Challenge

                              I appreciate you guys making up possible plans for more changes, but I just don't see any trades that we can make that make us that much better.

                              Even the trades you listed, Tbird, are a bit unrealistic or underwhelming to me.

                              Denver isn't gonna trade us Kleiza + a 1st round draft pick and Hunter for Foster. They would be crazy to do so IMO.

                              Portland isn't gonna trade their young studs for Juniors bloated contract either. As much as we all like Dunleavy, I think to most of the league he is still underrated with a big contract to boot.

                              The Cleveland trade is probably the most realistic one I have seen, but I don't really know if that makes us that much better. Plus we are giving up on a couple young guys with potential, mainly Williams. I think it would be a bad idea to trade him for mediocre players with big contracts. Even Marquis fits a role here that is needed still. A slasher/finisher.

                              The more I think about all this the more I think we should stick with what we have and see how it goes, that's my masterplan.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X