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

PF Situation

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

  • #76
    Re: PF Situation

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I agree, that's part of my point. At the same time, who has tried? The Hawks made the playoffs last year with a team built primarily though the draft. Billy Knight was using the same model for that team than he & Donnie used for the 1990s-era Pacers. And the Bobcats were making more progress building through the draft before they screwed it up by trading for Jason Richardson. So I don't think it is impossible to build a team this way.
    I'm really hesitant to point to the Hawks as a model of success. Their entry into the playoffs had more to do with the East being so top-heavy, than it did with how successful they were last year. They've certainly improved, but keep in mind, they still won 37 games. Not the worst record in the world, but the West has 50-win teams that can't even crack the playoff lineup.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: PF Situation

      And the bottom-feeders in the West were worse than the bottom-feeders in the East. That's an odd dichotomy that helped lift all the decent teams in the west to > 50 wins.

      My point is, the Hawks have gone from 13 wins to 37 wins over four years as they worked through a youth movement. That is unquestionably a success story.
      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


      • #78
        Re: PF Situation

        Originally posted by Hicks View Post
        I must have missed the part ...
        I tried to reply, but it disappeared again. I don't have time right now to re-do it properly.

        In summary,

        When Troy plays 34+ minutes, his teams were typically in the 34-win range.

        Jeff has never played more than 26 mpg (and he missed 21 games that season because of his hip injury). His limitations and reliance on quickness have never allowed him to play "starter's" minutes of 34+ per game.

        So with them sharing the PF minutes, I think winning ~30-34 games is a reasonable expectation. If you're only going to win 34 games, you might as well commit to the youth movement.

        Haslem is already 28.

        I think the earliest this team will be competitive again is 2011. I'd like to bring in Haslem because he and Rasho can do a nice job of showing the young players how to play. I just want the young players to spend 28+ mpg playing and 20 or so mpg watching how the veterans do it.

        But we won't be competitive in 2011 if we waste this season trying to make the #8 seed. That just pushes everything out another year.

        Trading JO for a pick, an expiring contract, and a young, eneven PG is not a move for 2008-09. I know the front office still needs to sell tickets, so they can't call it a youth movement from a marketing perspective. So they've got to figure out if they are trying to win it all next season or not. If not, they should play for the future and the fans' can adjust their expectations accordingly. I don't think they are mortgaging thier future to compete next season, I think next season is used for development.

        - - - - - - - -

        A youth movement is not the same as tanking. I want to win as many games as possible while developing Rush and Hibbert, and letting Danny get comfortable as "the" man. I just don't care what the record is next season. Its irrelevant. But if Rush, Danny, and Hibbert played 28+ mpg and led us to the playoffs next season, that's okay with me.
        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


        • #79
          Re: PF Situation

          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
          And the bottom-feeders in the West were worse than the bottom-feeders in the East. That's an odd dichotomy that helped lift all the decent teams in the west to > 50 wins.

          My point is, the Hawks have gone from 13 wins to 37 wins over four years as they worked through a youth movement.
          AND 1 piece of that 37 wins has already left w/o the Hawks getting any compensation, and another one wanting out. That's not a great building example to use for the future when some of the Hawks youth has or is wanting to move on. What's next year going to look like for the Hawks... the lottery again? Back to building again for the next 4-5 years? That's not what I want for the Pacers!

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: PF Situation

            Originally posted by Bball View Post
            You have to be actively seeking trades (and FA's for that matter) for deals to come your way. If you're not an active player and prefer more times than not to "stand pat" then you're not likely snag an eye opening trade. If you're constantly putting feelers out and keeping your ear close to the ground, you just might find that a "lopsided" trade can come your way afterall.
            All that is true and i agree with it completely. Outside of the Lakers/Grizz, trade, when was the last one that was that one way? I know some may say that the Heat got the way better part of the Shaq/Marion trade, but they still had to give up a servicable player. I'm all for making trades that make the team better.

            I hope that Hibbert proves to be a go to guy down low so we can focus on a DD or Kurt Thomas type of player.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: PF Situation

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              AND 1 piece of that 37 wins has already left w/o the Hawks getting any compensation, and another one wanting out. That's not a great building example to use for the future when some of the Hawks youth has or is wanting to move on. What's next year going to look like for the Hawks... the lottery again? Back to building again for the next 4-5 years? That's not what I want for the Pacers!

              I would hope that our management team is not as idiotic as Atlantas, the worst in the league.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: PF Situation

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                I tried to reply, but it disappeared again. I don't have time right now to re-do it properly.

                In summary,

                When Troy plays 34+ minutes, his teams were typically in the 34-win range.

                Jeff has never played more than 26 mpg (and he missed 21 games that season because of his hip injury). His limitations and reliance on quickness have never allowed him to play "starter's" minutes of 34+ per game.

                So with them sharing the PF minutes, I think winning ~30-34 games is a reasonable expectation. If you're only going to win 34 games, you might as well commit to the youth movement.

                Haslem is already 28.

                I think the earliest this team will be competitive again is 2011. I'd like to bring in Haslem because he and Rasho can do a nice job of showing the young players how to play. I just want the young players to spend 28+ mpg playing and 20 or so mpg watching how the veterans do it.

                But we won't be competitive in 2011 if we waste this season trying to make the #8 seed. That just pushes everything out another year.

                Trading JO for a pick, an expiring contract, and a young, eneven PG is not a move for 2008-09. I know the front office still needs to sell tickets, so they can't call it a youth movement from a marketing perspective. So they've got to figure out if they are trying to win it all next season or not. If not, they should play for the future and the fans' can adjust their expectations accordingly. I don't think they are mortgaging thier future to compete next season, I think next season is used for development.

                - - - - - - - -

                A youth movement is not the same as tanking. I want to win as many games as possible while developing Rush and Hibbert, and letting Danny get comfortable as "the" man. I just don't care what the record is next season. Its irrelevant. But if Rush, Danny, and Hibbert played 28+ mpg and led us to the playoffs next season, that's okay with me.
                So you are saying with playing Murphy and Foster at PF the Pacers are only going to win 30-34 games after bringing in Ford, Jack, Rasho, Rush and Hibbert? What you are saying is you don't think the current roster is better than the team who won 35 games last season! For Bird's career, he had best hope you are wrong!
                Last edited by Justin Tyme; 08-05-2008, 07:40 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: PF Situation

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  My point is, the Hawks have gone from 13 wins to 37 wins over four years as they worked through a youth movement. That is unquestionably a success story.
                  Wow.

                  Double wow for this coming from the keyboard of the guy who gives out a C+ to teams that make the Conference Finals.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: PF Situation

                    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                    And the bottom-feeders in the West were worse than the bottom-feeders in the East. That's an odd dichotomy that helped lift all the decent teams in the west to > 50 wins.

                    My point is, the Hawks have gone from 13 wins to 37 wins over four years as they worked through a youth movement. That is unquestionably a success story.
                    But that doesn't really prove anything. The better of who gets to scrape the bottom of the barrel is inconsequential (for credibility sake, I hope I'm close on the spelling of that one) to the discussion of whether the draft works. That is more of a reflection of how well the GM's handle the draft. It's kind of like when you're really hungry, the main concern is getting something to eat. Whereas, when you eat well most of the time, you might focus more on spice content and plating technique. (Can anyone tell that I'm an Iron Chef America fan? ) Anyway, my point is, there has been so much negative in Atlanta, the playoffs were a great accomplishment for them, even if they wouldn't be a playoff team if the Conference was stronger. They've had SOME success, yes. It was a feelgood moment for the fans, yes. But to have 37 wins to show for the high range of draft picks at their disposal for the period of time the Hawks have been terrible, it is a model of what to stay away from IMHO. Not to mention they are probably going to lose 2 of their 3 most important players to what limited success they've had.
                    Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 08-05-2008, 08:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: PF Situation

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      I tried to reply, but it disappeared again. I don't have time right now to re-do it properly.

                      In summary,

                      When Troy plays 34+ minutes, his teams were typically in the 34-win range.

                      Jeff has never played more than 26 mpg (and he missed 21 games that season because of his hip injury). His limitations and reliance on quickness have never allowed him to play "starter's" minutes of 34+ per game.

                      So with them sharing the PF minutes, I think winning ~30-34 games is a reasonable expectation. If you're only going to win 34 games, you might as well commit to the youth movement.
                      I just find that incredibly simplistic. There's not a 1-to-1 correlation between Troy or Jeff being the starting power forward and the number of wins that team had. They are just role players. It's the "star" or best players that make the biggest impact in that category. Jeff and Troy aren't the problem. Dunleavy/Granger not (to this point) being enough is the problem. Either they need to get better, or they need help. I'd like to think with the arrival of Ford that they've gotten some quality help. That's not Jeff's fault or Troy's fault, but it could result in them being replaced. I do agree with that.

                      I can see Danny improving a bit more, and we'll see if that's enough or not. My guess is it would take that, plus Ford showing what the optimists think he can show, and finally Hibbert panning out as a solid starter or better to make it enough. I'm somewhat confident Danny has one final gear to shift to, but I'm shaky on Ford showing it, and I have no clue on Hibbert, so there's still a lot hanging in the air. With those guys, it's wait-and-see mode for now.

                      Haslem is already 28.
                      I wouldn't worry too badly about his age for another 5 years. He could play a role for at least a while.

                      But we won't be competitive in 2011 if we waste this season trying to make the #8 seed. That just pushes everything out another year.
                      I'm not convinced of that at all. Rookie's don't have on/off switches when it comes to development and improvement. Especially when they at least are part of the rotation, which I expect Rush and Hibbert to be. They won't get a crash course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Danny didn't get a crash course (well, he kind of did year 2, but not as a rookie) and he's turning out well.

                      Al and Jeff didn't sniff the court their first year(s) but both became productive players.

                      Trading JO for a pick, an expiring contract, and a young, eneven PG is not a move for 2008-09.
                      You're absolutely right.... it's both. JO didn't play enough last year or well enough last year to be "the man" or even close most of the time. He wasn't the JO we used to know. He was a shell. And that's when he actually played for any given stretch of time.

                      People can harp all they want about T.J. Ford's neck, but the fact is, it's all or nothing with him. He'll either be fine and available, or he'll get whacked big time and miss a long stretch. There will be no guessing games, no play-one-game, sit the next, no "play, but never on back to back nights". He'll either be totally here, or totally out of the way. Combine that with the fact that he's not a shell of his former self, and I call that a significant improvement. Especially given how important PGs are, and how dreadful our PG rotation was last year.

                      It's an even better deal when you remember the expiring contract is also our starting center for next year. That's immediate help too.

                      And then beyond that it is of course help for the future with the money clearing out with Rasho, and adding Roy Hibbert, who I like more and more as I continue to learn/hear more about him.

                      It was both. That's why it was a good trade. If things pan out, it becomes a great trade.

                      I know the front office still needs to sell tickets, so they can't call it a youth movement from a marketing perspective. So they've got to figure out if they are trying to win it all next season or not. If not, they should play for the future and the fans' can adjust their expectations accordingly. I don't think they are mortgaging thier future to compete next season, I think next season is used for development.
                      We agree that they aren't mortgaging their future. But we disagree with the mindset of "you're either a basement team, or you're a contender." There IS an in-between, and sometimes getting to that contender status is a series of steps up, rather than another on/off switch.

                      Sometimes it's about improving a bit at a time. Detroit didn't become what they were overnight. But that didn't stop them from being in the title hunt for five years in a row (I tend to discount '03 because they were swept in the ECF).

                      Here's the reality as I see it: That top-pick superstar is not walking through those doors. We don't have that luxury. We have to do it the hard(er) way. Brick by brick. You make moves like the Toronto deal, you don't screw the pooch on the youth or contending side in one fell swoop, and while you continue to move forward, you quietly hope one of your acquisitions blossoms beyond your expectations (like JO did, and Danny is starting to).

                      A youth movement is not the same as tanking. I want to win as many games as possible while developing Rush and Hibbert, and letting Danny get comfortable as "the" man. I just don't care what the record is next season. Its irrelevant. But if Rush, Danny, and Hibbert played 28+ mpg and led us to the playoffs next season, that's okay with me.
                      This seems like a contradiction to your previous posts where you wanted and expected us to be a top-4 lottery team. You don't become one of those teams unless you have far less talent than us, or you tank.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: PF Situation

                        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                        A youth movement is not the same as tanking. I want to win as many games as possible while developing Rush and Hibbert, and letting Danny get comfortable as "the" man. I just don't care what the record is next season. Its irrelevant. But if Rush, Danny, and Hibbert played 28+ mpg and led us to the playoffs next season, that's okay with me.
                        I have no problem playing them at 28mpg....as long as they show that they have earned it and are clearly the better choice to get minutes over their teammates. But unless Rush and Hibbert show that they are much better options at the SG and Big Man rotation over the likes of Jack/Dunleavy and Foster/Rashot.....in their rookie years no less......then JO'B is going to default to putting the best players on the floor...which will more then likely be the vets that play ahead of them in the rotation.

                        I just don't get the sense that JO'B is going to automatically give Rush and Hibbert 28mpg just so that they can develop....he didn't do it for Ike and he didn't do it for Shawne last season.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: PF Situation

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I just find that incredibly simplistic. There's not a 1-to-1 correlation between Troy or Jeff being the starting power forward and the number of wins that team had. They are just role players. It's the "star" or best players that make the biggest impact in that category. Jeff and Troy aren't the problem. Dunleavy/Granger not (to this point) being enough is the problem. Either they need to get better, or they need help. I'd like to think with the arrival of Ford that they've gotten some quality help. That's not Jeff's fault or Troy's fault, but it could result in them being replaced. I do agree with that.

                          I can see Danny improving a bit more, and we'll see if that's enough or not. My guess is it would take that, plus Ford showing what the optimists think he can show, and finally Hibbert panning out as a solid starter or better to make it enough. I'm somewhat confident Danny has one final gear to shift to, but I'm shaky on Ford showing it, and I have no clue on Hibbert, so there's still a lot hanging in the air. With those guys, it's wait-and-see mode for now.



                          I wouldn't worry too badly about his age for another 5 years. He could play a role for at least a while.



                          I'm not convinced of that at all. Rookie's don't have on/off switches when it comes to development and improvement. Especially when they at least are part of the rotation, which I expect Rush and Hibbert to be. They won't get a crash course, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Danny didn't get a crash course (well, he kind of did year 2, but not as a rookie) and he's turning out well.

                          Al and Jeff didn't sniff the court their first year(s) but both became productive players.



                          You're absolutely right.... it's both. JO didn't play enough last year or well enough last year to be "the man" or even close most of the time. He wasn't the JO we used to know. He was a shell. And that's when he actually played for any given stretch of time.

                          People can harp all they want about T.J. Ford's neck, but the fact is, it's all or nothing with him. He'll either be fine and available, or he'll get whacked big time and miss a long stretch. There will be no guessing games, no play-one-game, sit the next, no "play, but never on back to back nights". He'll either be totally here, or totally out of the way. Combine that with the fact that he's not a shell of his former self, and I call that a significant improvement. Especially given how important PGs are, and how dreadful our PG rotation was last year.

                          It's an even better deal when you remember the expiring contract is also our starting center for next year. That's immediate help too.

                          And then beyond that it is of course help for the future with the money clearing out with Rasho, and adding Roy Hibbert, who I like more and more as I continue to learn/hear more about him.

                          It was both. That's why it was a good trade. If things pan out, it becomes a great trade.



                          We agree that they aren't mortgaging their future. But we disagree with the mindset of "you're either a basement team, or you're a contender." There IS an in-between, and sometimes getting to that contender status is a series of steps up, rather than another on/off switch.

                          Sometimes it's about improving a bit at a time. Detroit didn't become what they were overnight. But that didn't stop them from being in the title hunt for five years in a row (I tend to discount '03 because they were swept in the ECF).

                          Here's the reality as I see it: That top-pick superstar is not walking through those doors. We don't have that luxury. We have to do it the hard(er) way. Brick by brick. You make moves like the Toronto deal, you don't screw the pooch on the youth or contending side in one fell swoop, and while you continue to move forward, you quietly hope one of your acquisitions blossoms beyond your expectations (like JO did, and Danny is starting to).



                          This seems like a contradiction to your previous posts where you wanted and expected us to be a top-4 lottery team. You don't become one of those teams unless you have far less talent than us, or you tank.



                          I have found that most of the time, the people with the most negative outlook for the team often are the type that covet high draft picks. So in their own way... they are sunshiners themselves!

                          I think its way too early for this really. Lets see what we have before people start freaking out. I have a pretty positive outlook, and I can say barring major injuries or lottery luck, if one really think this team will get a top 5 pick, they may be sorely dissapointed. Hell Travis Diener almost led this team to the playoffs last year, and yet we are supposed to be worse now?
                          "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


                          • #88
                            Re: PF Situation

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            My point is, the Hawks have gone from 13 wins to 37 wins over four years as they worked through a youth movement. That is unquestionably a success story.
                            And the huge crowds flocking to Hawks games proves that the city of Atlanta

                            Those stellar lottery picks sure made Atlanta a consistent elite franch

                            Sorry, I couldn't get through either of those with a straight face.

                            I don't EVER want to see the Pacers go through what Atlanta has gone through. Before this year, they hadn't been in the playoffs since 1999. Your REALLY think the Pacers can go 10 years without winning 40 games, 8 of those without sniffing the playoffs, and still survive in this city when IU and Purdue are only an hour or so away?

                            Yeah, going from 13 wins to 37 was a "success", but they dropped from 50 to 13 in the 7 years before that.
                            BillS

                            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: PF Situation

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Wow.

                              Double wow for this coming from the keyboard of the guy who gives out a C+ to teams that make the Conference Finals.
                              Depends on the expectations.

                              We've been spoiled for the majority of the past 15 years. Our team, until the past couple of seasons, was clearly capable of the NBA's final four over most of that period of time.

                              With JO gone, and Tinsley on his way out, this team is clearly years away from being a contender. I expect, by 2011-2012, that my prefered grading scale of Championship = A, Lose in Finals Game #7 = A-, Lose in Finals Game #6 = B+, etc. to be in effect.

                              I've said more than once, I'll watch the young guys develop because I understand the long term plan. But I'm not going to invest much time/energy into watching Ford/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Rasho eek out 34-38 wins and barely slip into playoffs for a couple more years while Larry Bird pats himself on the back for getting a team into the playoffs (while attendance falls further.)

                              That's the dooms-day scenario. IMHO.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Re: PF Situation

                                Re: the Hawks. Don't forget, there is an ongoing ownership squabble undermining the moves that BK was making. I can't comment any more than that.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X