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

Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

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

  • #16
    Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

    Since the Clippers won't likely resign Quinton Ross...and they have a need for some added depth at the Wing positions..is there anyway that we can do a S&T of Quinton Ross for Shawne?

    Not only would I love to add Ross' defense to our lineup....it would push Rush further up the rotational ladder.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

      Don't we have 1-2mm before we're over the L.tax? If so, I'd try to just sign him first.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        Since the Clippers won't likely resign Quinton Ross...and they have a need for some added depth at the Wing positions..is there anyway that we can do a S&T of Quinton Ross for Shawne?

        Not only would I love to add Ross' defense to our lineup....it would push Rush further up the rotational ladder.
        I was thinking about Ross last week, not as a Pacer, but in the sense I hadn't heard if he had signed somewhere. I was thinking maybe Boston or another team as a "D" specialist. Now, that Williams has stepped on his weenie. I could see a trade of Williams for Ross.

        Wiliams salary is 1.5 mil and Ross' salary last year was $825,000. Offer Williams to the Clippers for a S&T of Ross at 1.5-2 mil. Or offer Williams and McRoberts for Ross with a salary at 2-2.5 mil. It would be a 2 for 1 trade bringing the Pacers roster to 15 with the Pacers still be under the LT. How long b4 McRoberts can be traded? JMOAA

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          I was thinking about Ross last week, not as a Pacer, but in the sense I hadn't heard if he had signed somewhere. I was thinking maybe Boston or another team as a "D" specialist. Now, that Williams has stepped on his weenie. I could see a trade of Williams for Ross.

          Wiliams salary is 1.5 mil and Ross' salary last year was $825,000. Offer Williams to the Clippers for a S&T of Ross at 1.5-2 mil. Or offer Williams and McRoberts for Ross with a salary at 2-2.5 mil. It would be a 2 for 1 trade bringing the Pacers roster to 15 with the Pacers still be under the LT. How long b4 McRoberts can be traded? JMOAA
          Please execute this trade immediately (if feasible)!!!!!!!

          Now, can we somehow unload Tins on them, too. And, maybe get Powell back somehow? That would make my offseason...short of getting Landry.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

            LOL.....the Warriors match the Clippers Azubuike's offer.

            http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wir...r_to_azubuike/

            The Golden State Warriors have matched the contract offer submitted to restricted free agent guard Kelenna Azubuike by the Los Angeles Clippers, it was announced today by Executive Vice President of Basketball Operations Chris Mullin. The Warriors had seven (7) days from receipt of the contract – Friday, July 18 - to match the offer from Los Angeles. Per team policy, terms of the agreement were not announced. “We are pleased to have Kelenna back in the fold,” said Mullin. “He’s a young and talented player who has continued to improve during his two seasons with our team. His versatility, athleticism and ability to shoot the 3-pointer certainly fit our style of play. Additionally, we think he will continue to improve and expand his game.” The Golden State Warriors have matched the contract offer submitted to restricted free agent guard Kelenna Azubuike by the Los Angeles Clippers,
            The Clips just got "Mullin-ed" again....1st Maggette ( but not like they were going to keep him anyway ).....then decided to match Azubuike.

            Hmm.....they still need some scoring depth at their Wing positions........maybe Bird should call up Sterling and suggest a Shawne for Ross S&T while they are reeling from yet another loss at the FA sweepstakes?

            Do it, Bird!!!!
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              LOL.....the Warriors match the Clippers Azubuike's offer.

              http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wir...r_to_azubuike/



              The Clips just got "Mullin-ed" again....1st Maggette ( but not like they were going to keep him anyway ).....then decided to match Azubuike.

              Hmm.....they still need some scoring depth at their Wing positions........maybe Bird should call up Sterling and suggest a Shawne for Ross S&T while they are reeling from yet another loss at the FA sweepstakes?

              Do it, Bird!!!!
              Q!!!
              Right on!
              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

              -Emiliano Zapata

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                I really don't understand the Quinton Ross love in here.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  I really don't understand the Quinton Ross love in here.

                  Fans are fickle! They are always wanting something else.

                  Prime instance is Stephen Graham. Last season they were screaming for JOB to give him more playing time. This off season he's the forgotten player.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Don't we have 1-2mm before we're over the L.tax? If so, I'd try to just sign him first.
                    Unless Shawne isn't as close to being shown the door as most of us think....then I can see Bird trying to hold onto him longer to see if he actually grows up....but at this point...I would much rather cut my losses while getting a player that clearly does not have as much upside as Shawne does...but can definitely fill a much needed role while ensuring that Brandon gets more minutes in the lineup.

                    As far as I am concerned....if it seems very likely that Shawne is gone...then I would much rather get rid of him now...then later....mainly cuz I consider Shawne an obstacle that can get in front of the way of Brandon getting the minutes to develop. Although Ross could compete with Brandon for some minutes at the backup SG/SF rotation....I think that Ross' lack of scoring ability could justify getting Brandon some solid minutes when needed.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                      Originally posted by Shade View Post
                      I really don't understand the Quinton Ross love in here.
                      I think that we have enough scorers on this team that I don't mind focusing more on getting solid defenders.

                      I always believe that the more perimeter defenders that we have...the better. For a $1.5-2 mil contract....I have ZERO problems with getting a solid perimeter defender roleplayer that can come off the bench.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Fans are fickle! They are always wanting something else.
                        The way that I look at it is that Bird can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.....(1) he can move a problemed child and (2) he can make TBird and I happy-campers knowing that he is committing the team to defense.

                        NOTE - I know that Brandon was brought in to shore up our perimeter defense...but adding another quick perimeter SG defender like Ross would only solidify our lineup.

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        Prime instance is Stephen Graham. Last season they were screaming for JOB to give him more playing time. This off season he's the forgotten player.
                        I don't think that Graham is forgotten....he is what he is....a 4th/5th SG/SF that will get minutes when anybody ahead of him in the rotation gets injured. I wish he can get some decent minutes in the rotation...but I have no clue why JO'B doesn't play him more. Besides....any minutes that he gets only takes away from Brandon's development.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post

                          I don't think that Graham is forgotten....he is what he is....a 4th/5th SG/SF that will get minutes when anybody ahead of him in the rotation gets injured.

                          I wish he can get some decent minutes in the rotation...but I have no clue why JO'B doesn't play him more. Besides....any minutes that he gets only takes away from Brandon's development.

                          You don't even make sense! Your willing to bring in Ross, who would take minutes away from the development of Rush, but it's not ok for Graham to take development time away from Rush. I love how Rush has become the annoited one. For Bird's sake, I hope Rush can live up to the expectations of being the "do all is all guy."

                          Why do the Pacers need Ross? Isn't one of Daniels' forte "D"? Ross and Daniels play the same positions. Personally, if the Pacers are going to keep Daniels, I'd like to see him earn his paycheck. If he can't, then he was no place on the team. That's right the Simons are paying him 6.8 mil to be non-rotational player with an expiring contract!!

                          Now, someone tell me why TPTB traded Cro's expiring for Daniels? That has to be one of the 2 to 3 top blunders of the last 3 years! JMOAA

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            You don't even make sense! Your willing to bring in Ross, who would take minutes away from the development of Rush, but it's not ok for Graham to take development time away from Rush. I love how Rush has become the annoited one. For Bird's sake, I hope Rush can live up to the expectations of being the "do all is all guy."

                            Why do the Pacers need Ross? Isn't one of Daniels' forte "D"? Ross and Daniels play the same positions. Personally, if the Pacers are going to keep Daniels, I'd like to see him earn his paycheck. If he can't, then he was no place on the team. That's right the Simons are paying him 6.8 mil to be non-rotational player with an expiring contract!!

                            Now, someone tell me why TPTB traded Cro's expiring for Daniels? That has to be one of the 2 to 3 top blunders of the last 3 years! JMOAA
                            The Croshere-Daniels trade looks like a blunder in retrospect. Hindsight is 20/20. I think the general consensus on it when it went down was a reasonable one as far as our POV is concerned. Not saying it was unanimously accepted, but many considered it a good deal.

                            As to MD's defense. I have been underwhelmed by it personally. Not as good as what I had expected. Mediocre or highly average for a guy with his athletic ability. Outside of a good game here and there, particularly in the quick hands department, not much else.

                            Graham looked good when he got minutes but they were so sparse it's hard to tell. What I felt he showed was a nice stroke from outside and a certain amount of offensive potential. I don't believe he's shown that he has a lot of defensive prowess, but again, maybe that could develop. IMO he's a decent back-up wing with a nice touch.

                            The one thing I think the team as it's constructed is missing is physicality and toughness. That's what interests me in a guy like Ross. Same with Landry. They bring a lot of tenacity and physical and mental toughness. We need more of that attitude. I'm happy with the guys we have overall. However, we are lacking a certain presence a guy like Ross could bring. Plus he's a better wing defender than pretty much anyone we have currently.
                            I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                            -Emiliano Zapata

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                              The Croshere-Daniels trade looks like a blunder in retrospect. Hindsight is 20/20. I think the general consensus on it when it went down was a reasonable one as far as our POV is concerned. Not saying it was unanimously accepted, but many considered it a good deal.

                              As to MD's defense. I have been underwhelmed by it personally. Not as good as what I had expected. Mediocre or highly average for a guy with his athletic ability. Outside of a good game here and there, particularly in the quick hands department, not much else.

                              Graham looked good when he got minutes but they were so sparse it's hard to tell. What I felt he showed was a nice stroke from outside and a certain amount of offensive potential. I don't believe he's shown that he has a lot of defensive prowess, but again, maybe that could develop. IMO he's a decent back-up wing with a nice touch.

                              The one thing I think the team as it's constructed is missing is physicality and toughness. That's what interests me in a guy like Ross. Same with Landry. They bring a lot of tenacity and physical and mental toughness. We need more of that attitude. I'm happy with the guys we have overall. However, we are lacking a certain presence a guy like Ross could bring. Plus he's a better wing defender than pretty much anyone we have currently.

                              Underwhelmed is being extremely polite. He's sporadic at best. He has a nice game then 2 games of nothing. There was a reason Dallas let him go... injury prone and sporadic play would be my guess.

                              I am in favor of giving Graham the opportunity to show want he can do. If he can't, then let him sit on the end of the bench a be a towel waving Eddie Gill. If he can, what's the reasoning of keeping Daniels and Williams? Package them for your toughness in the form of a PF.

                              The Pacers have 16 players under contract now, so how can they afford to sign Ross as a FA who is a pretty one dimensional type player? That means cutting and paying 2 guaranteed contracts, or doing a 3 for 1 deal which is very unlikely to happen. I just don't see the Pacers need or can afford Ross. JMOAA

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Sources: Clips, swingman Azubuike agree to multiyear offer sheet

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                You don't even make sense! Your willing to bring in Ross, who would take minutes away from the development of Rush, but it's not ok for Graham to take development time away from Rush. I love how Rush has become the annoited one. For Bird's sake, I hope Rush can live up to the expectations of being the "do all is all guy."
                                Yeah....I would much rather have Graham play behind both Rush and Ross ( if we can get him ). Graham IMHO is an end-of-the-bench player that for one reason or another cuz JO'B won't play him unless someone gets injured.

                                Now...if we somehow decide to move Shawne and can get a future backup PF that would fit our needs...then I would be fine with having Brandon and Graham be our primary GF backup players. But if we can't get then I would really prefer that we continue to shore up our defense at the wing positions.

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Why do the Pacers need Ross? Isn't one of Daniels' forte "D"? Ross and Daniels play the same positions. Personally, if the Pacers are going to keep Daniels, I'd like to see him earn his paycheck. If he can't, then he was no place on the team. That's right the Simons are paying him 6.8 mil to be non-rotational player with an expiring contract!!

                                Now, someone tell me why TPTB traded Cro's expiring for Daniels? That has to be one of the 2 to 3 top blunders of the last 3 years! JMOAA
                                That's where we differ.....I don't consider Marquis part of the Pacers future. I really think that Marquis' game fit the type of offense that Carlisle was running and not the type of offense that Nellie was running in Dallas. That's why I think we acquired him way back when.

                                IMHO...he's the one player on the Pacers roster that has had AS MANY off-court issue that TPTB has not mentioned as a possible trade candidate that I am pretty sure will be shopped at some point due to his value as an Expiring Contract.

                                By the end of the season....I'm hoping that we simply let Marquis expire.....but I'm guessing that he will be moved for our future backup PF.

                                As for why I want Ross on the team?

                                I concede that there may not really be a need for him since we do have Brandon...who was supposed to fill that role. But since we have enough scorers on this team....IMHO....we can never have enough defensive minded players to compliment them in the lineup. At best.....Ross would be a roleplayer on this team. To me...this means that at worst....I can see a player like Ross play next to Brandon in the GF rotation...and at best, play ahead of Brandon in the lineup when Ross is the better choice at defending the opposing SG.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X