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

Chad Ford's unprotected list

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

  • Chad Ford's unprotected list

    Sorry I don't know how you can copy and paste these. But I know many of you do.

    By the way Croshere is unprotected according to Chad Ford, along with AJ, PB, Pollard, and JJ.


    Looking at the whole list, I see the Bobcats taking a Pacer player, either JJ or PB

  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

    The places to find, copy, and paste Insider here from, are usually:

    http://www.phxsuns.net/index.php?nam...2f1e5518312e36

    &

    http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/pos...Board=aroundtl

    Neither has this yet, but if you keep checking, eventually they likely will, and then please copy and paste it here.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

      put mouse on top of article.
      left click ONE time, hold mouse button (the left one) down.
      move mouse to end of article till all is "highlighted".
      release mouse button
      look at top of browser, click on "edit", select: copy (selected)
      open up 2nd browser, go to Pacersdigest.com, go to "insider" forum.
      select "new post"
      right click mouse inside text block (where you normally type your message) and select "paste"
      click left mouse button

      ..................................<drumroll here inserted for good measure>..........................



      et voila: a complete post



      hope it helps
      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

        ok then i assume cookie manipulation is in order, that's to hard to explain

        sorry just tried to be helpfull
        So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

          ok then i assume cookie manipulation is in order, that's to hard to explain

          sorry just tried to be helpfull
          it's javascript they're using to disable copy/paste menu items and hotkeys like CTRL+C.

          use Mozilla with Javascript turned off and it works fine.

          or do a "view source" then save the text file and copy it from there.
          Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

            By Chad Ford
            ESPN Insider

            NBA teams submitted their lists of unprotected players to the league Friday in anticipation of the Charlotte Bobcats' expansion draft. In an unusual move, the league decided to keep the list confidential and has threatened to fine teams up to $1 million for divulging which players they declined to protect.
            Nevertheless, Insider has compiled through team and league sources, as well as player agents, a team-by-team list of players available to the Bobcats. Given the league's veil of secrecy surrounding the unprotected lists, some names could not be confirmed from two independent sources. However, we're confident our list closely resembles the one Bernie Bickerstaff and company will have in front of them June 22.
            Each NBA team is allowed to protect up to eight players and must leave at least one unprotected. With unrestricted free agents ineligible for the expansion draft, the number of unprotected players varies from one to seven for each team.
            Here's a look at the players sources have indicated are available for the expansion draft. In cases where we have been unable to confirm whether a player is on the list, we note it in the comments:
            Key: * = restricted free agent | bold = possible target for the Bobcats
            Atlanta Hawks: Alan Henderson, PF
            Insider analysis: No real surprise here and no real chance the Bobcats will select Henderson. While his contract does expire after next season, there are better options on the board.
            Expansion Draft Rules
            # Unrestricted free agents are ineligible for the expansion draft.
            # Each team can protect up to eight players. If a team has less than eight players on their roster to protect, they still must leave a minimum of one player unprotected.
            # The Bobcats must select a minimum of 14 players and can select a maximum of 29 players overall.
            # The Bobcats can only select one player per team.
            # The Bobcats are not bound to the salary cap during the draft. They can take on as many contracts as they like. However, once the draft is over, any players that they've drafted and keep count toward their cap (it should come in at around $29 million).
            # As long as the Bobcats waive a player drafted in the expansion draft before the first day of the regular season, the player's remaining contract does not count against the Bobcats' salary cap.
            # Restricted free agents drafted in the expansion draft automatically become unrestricted free agents.
            # Teams are allowed to entice the Bobcats to select players by offering cash, draft picks or agreeing to additional trades in return.
            # If a team has a player selected by the Bobcats, the team receives a trade exception equal to the player's 2004-05 salary. This allows teams to replace a player lost in the expansion draft with another player of comparable salary.
            Boston Celtics: Chucky Atkins, PG; Ernest Brown*, C; Jumaine Jones, SF; Brandon Hunter, PF; Michael Stewart, C
            Insider analysis: Atkins could be a target for the Bobcats. He makes a reasonable amount of money for a starting point guard, and he has only two years remaining on his contract. Hunter also could be an interesting pick here. He played well for Boston last year, and he's young, tough and could get real minutes in Charlotte.
            Chicago Bulls: Antonio Davis, C; Ronald Dupree*, SF; Marcus Fizer*, PF; Scottie Pippen, SF; Eddie Robinson, SF; Jerome Williams, PF
            Insider analysis: The Bulls loaded their list with untouchables. Fizer is the only one who makes some sense for Charlotte. But remember, because he's a restricted free agent, he becomes unrestricted if the Bobcats draft him. There's no guarantee he'd stick around. Dupree also is a possibility. He's cheap, has great athletic ability and showed some promise last season.
            Cleveland Cavaliers: Ruben Boumtje Boumtje*, C; Jason Kapono, SF; Ira Newble, SF, Kevin Ollie, PG
            Insider analysis: The Cavaliers' two prize free-agent acquisitions last summer are both on the list. The Cavs would love to cut a deal with the Bobcats to take Ollie off their hands. Kapono is a guy the Bobcats will seriously consider drafting. He's one of the better shooters on the board and comes cheap.
            Dallas Mavericks: Tariq Abdul Wahad, SF; Tony Delk, PG; Danny Fortson, PF; Antoine Walker, SF/PF
            Insider analysis: Walker is an interesting addition to the list. However, because of his huge contract, there's no way Charlotte will draft him unless they have a trade worked out in advance. Everyone else on the list is too expensive and can't really play.
            Denver Nuggets: Jeff Trepagnier*, SG
            Insider analysis: Trepagnier's agent is already trying to get him a job in Charlotte. He's cheap and young, so you never know.
            Detroit Pistons: Elden Campbell, C
            Insider analysis: The Pistons don't have to submit their list until the Finals are over; however, Campbell will be the only player included. Look for Detroit to cut a deal to send a a future first-rounder and $3 million in cash to the Bobcats in exchange for drafting Campbell and removing him from the Pistons' cap. That would help Detroit in its efforts to re-sign Rasheed Wallace and Mehmet Okur. With the $3 million, Charlotte's share of Campbell's salary next season would be a palatable $1.4 million. After next season, he comes off the books.
            Golden State Warriors: J.R. Bremer*, SG; Evan Eschmeyer, C; Popeye Jones, PF
            Insider analysis: Ugh. Pass.
            Houston Rockets: Adrian Griffin, SG; Eric Piatkowski, SG; Maurice Taylor, SF/PF
            Insider analysis: Taylor is the best player here, but given his contract, there's no way he'll be selected. Piatkowski could be an interesting veteran for the Bobcats to consider. His salary over the next two years is reasonable, he can still shoot it, and he'd be a nice mentor to the young guys they plan to bring aboard.
            Indiana Pacers: Primoz Brezec, C; Austin Croshere, Anthony Johnson, PG; James Jones, SF; Scot Pollard, C
            Insider analysis: Another interesting list. Brezec is one of the best young centers on the board, and the Pacers are very high on Jones. Both could come cheap.
            Los Angeles Clippers: Matt Barnes*, SF; Keyon Dooling*, PG; Predrag Drobnjak, C; Eddie House, SG; Josh Moore*, C
            Insider analysis: Dooling is a possibility, but the team will have to deal with him as an unrestricted free agent. No one else on the roster makes much sense.
            Los Angeles Lakers: Derek Fisher, PG; Rick Fox, SF; Jamal Sampson, C
            Insider analysis: This is a projected list. The Lakers don't have to submit their list until after the Finals. Other possibilities are Devean George and Brian Cook. Fisher could be tempting to the Bobcats -- his salary isn't guaranteed in 2004-'05.
            Memphis Grizzlies: Troy Bell, PG; Ryan Humphrey, Dahntay Jones, SG; Bo Outlaw, PF; Theron Smith, SF; Jake Tsakalidis*, C; Lorenzen Wright, PF/C
            Insider analysis: The Grizzlies have the best list in the expansion draft. The Bobcats could take any of the players here, but they're allowed to draft only one. Bell could be the starting point guard next season on the expansion team. Outlaw is the type of veteran, an energy guy, who could help the Bobcats' rookies. Smith, who went undrafted last year, has a lot of upside and looked great in the summer league. Bottom line: The Grizzlies are going to lose a player.
            Miami Heat: Brian Grant, PF; Eddie Jones, SG; Loren Woods*, C
            Insider analysis: The Heat would love for the Bobcats to take Jones off their hands, but there's very little chance given his huge salary over the next three years.
            Milwaukee Bucks: Brian Skinner, PF; Erick Strickland, PG/SG
            Insider analysis: I'm a little stunned Skinner is on the list considering how well he played in Milwaukee last year. He can opt out of his contract, which means he may be an unrestricted free agent before the draft ever takes place. He has a terrible history of injuries, but given his reasonable salary for only one more year, he's another veteran who'd make a lot of sense in Charlotte.
            Minnesota Timberwolves: Ervin Johnson, C
            Insider analysis: Johnson is big, but I don't see the Bobcats having a lot of interest. He does have only one year left on his contract. Would the Bobcats draft him, then move him to another team?
            New Jersey Nets: Kerry Kittles, SG; Alonzo Mourning, C; Rodney Rogers, SF; Tamar Slay*, SF
            Insider analysis: Kittles was a big surprise. There will be a temptation for the Bobcats here. He has only one year at $9.9 million left on his deal. But remember, that's one third of Charlotte's salary cap. Slay is a more likely pick. He's shown some promise over the past two years and comes with a cheap price tag.
            New Orleans Hornets: Courtney Alexander*, SG; David Wesley, SG
            Insider analysis: Wesley is obviously on the outs in New Orleans. He played in Charlotte before moving to New Orleans, but it's unlikely the Bobcats want the $10 million remaining on his contract.
            New York Knicks: Shandon Anderson, SF; Anfernee Hardaway, PG/SG; Allan Houston, SG; Moochie Norris, PG; Cezary Trybanski, C
            Insider analysis: How bad is the Knicks' salary cap position? They exposed several of their cheapest players, and they're still so expensive the Bobcats won't be willing to touch them.
            Orlando Magic: Reece Gaines, PG; Britton Johnsen*, SF; Zaza Pachulia*, C; DeShawn Stevenson, SG*
            Insider analysis: The Magic list will turn some heads. They exposed several of their more interesting young players. Stevenson and Pachulia could get a lot of interest. Pachulia is the best young center available, and Stevenson showed flashes last season that he's finally getting it. Gaines is another possibility. He bombed in Orlando last season, but he still was a top 15 draft pick last year.
            Philadelphia 76ers: Greg Buckner, SG; Derrick Coleman, Marc Jackson, C; Todd MacCulloch, C; Aaron McKie, SG/SF
            Insider analysis: I think the Sixers can forget about getting any relief here. Their list is almost as bad as the Knicks'.
            Phoenix Suns: Howard Eisley, SG; Jahidi White, C
            Insider analysis: The Suns will try to entice the Bobcats to take the last year of White's deal. They could offer cash and one of their future first-rounders (perhaps the one owed them by the Cavs) with White. However, they're adamant they won't give up their No. 7 pick just to get White off the books. The Bobcats should be able to move White on to a playoff contender looking for another big.
            Blazers: Omar Cook, PG; Dan Dickau, PG; Desmond Ferguson*, SG; Eddie Gill, PG; Ruben Patterson, SF; Vladimir Stepania, C; Qyntel Woods, SG/SF
            Insider analysis: The team could have exposed one of their higher-priced players like Damon Stoudamire, Dale Davis or Derek Anderson, but instead it sounds like they're ready to give up on Woods. He's athletic, a big-time scorer, and -- if he can get his off-the-court problems under control -- could be the steal of the expansion draft for Charlotte.
            Sacramento Kings: Gerald Wallace, SG/SF
            Insider analysis: This came down to a choice between Doug Christie and Wallace. It was unlikely the Bobcats would've swallowed Christie's contract, but the Kings didn't want to risk it. Instead, they decided to expose Wallace, an athletic player who just never panned out in Sacramento. Wallace still has a lot of potential. This is a no-brainer for the Bobcats. Expect them to snatch him up.
            San Antonio Spurs: Matt Carroll, SG; Malik Rose, PF; Charlie Ward, PG
            Insider analysis: The Spurs would love to dump Rose and his big contract, but right now it's tough to believe the Bobcats would be willing to take on the remaining five years and $34 million. Ward has a $1.1 million player option on his contract. If he opts out, he's off the list.
            Seattle SuperSonics: Calvin Booth, C; Richie Frahm*, SG; Jerome James, C; Vitaly Potapenko, C
            Insider analysis: James will be a temptation for the Bobcats if he's actually on the list. He's big, only has one year left on his contract and still has some upside. Are the Bobcats willing to spend the $5.4 million? He may just be a little too expensive for their blood.
            Toronto Raptors: Lamond Murray, SF; Jalen Rose, SF; Alvin Williams, PG
            Insider analysis: New Raptors GM Rob Babcock wishes he could get so lucky. Too much money, too little talent for the Bobcats to take anyone on this list.
            Utah Jazz: Curtis Borchardt, C; Aleksandar Pavlovic, SG
            Insider analysis: To me, Pavlovic is the most shocking name on the entire list. He was Utah's first-round draft pick last season and played very well in the 14 minutes per game Jerry Sloan gave him. The Jazz reportedly were very high on him and easily could have exposed a less valuable player. What gives? Most likely, the Jazz and Bobcats have worked out some sort of deal in which Charlotte will draft Pavlovic, then send Utah something in compensation for making him available.
            Washington Wizards: Juan Dixon, PG/SG; Christian Laettner, C; Jerry Stackhouse, SG
            Insider analysis: The Wizards are another team that will try to work out a deal with the Bobcats. They don't really need their No. 5 pick and could use the cap space to sign a top-flight free agent. Will they dangle the pick in return for Charlotte taking Stackhouse, who just isn't a good fit in Washington any more? Laettner, who has only one year left on his contract, would be an easier player for the Bobcats to swallow, but the Wizards would be less likely to give up their No. 5 just to clear that contract off the books.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

              lol , you can find this list on a Free site , no need for the insider Infact I posted it in the other forum since not everyone can see this forum
              Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

                What I've done from IE is save the page (File | Save As) as a text file (to my desktop), then I copy and paste it here. Takes a couple minutes to format if you want to make it readable, but its not too hard.

                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

                  lol , you can find this list on a Free site , no need for the insider Infact I posted it in the other forum since not everyone can see this forum
                  I hope you're joking.
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

                    lol , you can find this list on a Free site , no need for the insider Infact I posted it in the other forum since not everyone can see this forum
                    I hope you're joking.
                    As am I.

                    Sauce, it's clearly labeled ESPN Insider, so it stays here.

                    The only reason you can find it on a free site is because they do what we do, only they don't try to hide it.

                    If you did post it on the Pacers board, please remove it immediately.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford's unprotected list

                      lol , you can find this list on a Free site , no need for the insider Infact I posted it in the other forum since not everyone can see this forum
                      I hope you're joking.
                      As am I.

                      Sauce, it's clearly labeled ESPN Insider, so it stays here.

                      The only reason you can find it on a free site is because they do what we do, only they don't try to hide it.

                      If you did post it on the Pacers board, please remove it immediately.
                      I didn't post the insider list , the one I got was from the charoltte paper , I realize not to post insider stuff in the public forum
                      Broadcasting Classic Rock Hits 24/7 SauceMaster Radio!!!!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X