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

Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

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

  • Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

    The 2007-08 NBA season was not a pleasant one for Indiana Pacers guard Marquis Daniels. He was coming off of knee surgery, and had to push himself through the pain while also trying to play basketball at the highest level. This year promises to be different, and Daniels is already showing the Pacers that he's ready to assume a much larger role with the team.

    "He's proving to everybody that he's a great player," says center Rasho Nesterovic. "He just proved it again, scoring 25 points in back-to-back games. He couldn't really get it going last year because he was injured, but he's back to the old Marquis now, like he was when he was in Dallas. We saw him a lot when I played for the Spurs and I can tell you it's not just his offense. He's really a great defensive player and passes the ball well, too. He does everything for us."

    "I think it will be consistent from Marquis," says head coach Jim O'Brien of Daniels' improved scoring touch. "He spent about 80% of last year in pain. He played in pain with his knee and he had to endure the pain in order for it to heal. Once he got over that he had a great six weeks to end the season, played like we knew he could play, and he's just carried that over."

    Already this season Daniels has carried his share of the scoring load as the team awaits the arrival of Mike Dunleavy, Jr. He's averaging a career-best 16.2 points per game and shooting 46% from the field.

    "He can really score the ball, and he rebounds well," says team MVP Danny Granger. "He can create for his teammates, which is one reason he fits so well into our style of play. We move the ball around to try and create easy baskets and it's important to have unselfish guys who can score in a lot of different ways."

    "I'm finally healthy," admits Daniels. "I'm glad to be healthy and finally be able to go out there and contribute the way I know I can. I give God and our trainers all the credit for getting me back healthy."

    "He's playing well and it's definitely been good playing alongside him," says floor general TJ Ford. "He's a good defender and he has to hold the hardest player every night, and offensively he's a good weapon. He's got the mid-range and he gets to the basket, and he's been playing unbelievably well lately."

    Whether it's players who have come to know Marquis well in past seasons, or the newcomers like Ford and Nesterovic, the entire Pacers organization has a great deal of confidence in Daniels.

    "My teammates always had confidence in me. The only problem I had last year was not being healthy. Even when I was hurt my teammates had confidence in me."

    "I think what we're seeing here in the early going is who Marquis Daniels really is," affirms Coach O'Brien. It wasn't the guy we saw over the first four months of last season, but he was always dragging his leg. The other problem last year was that he had to play a lot of point guard and that's not his position. As a result he took a lot of repetitions at the point guard spot in practice and that never allowed him to get comfortable in his normal spot. When we wound up picking Flip Murray off waivers and got him into the lineup we moved Marquis back to his natural position. Nothing he does right now is surprising anybody on the Pacers. That's who we view him as."

    So far 2008-09 is shaping up to be a banner year for Daniels, who is healthy and back at his true position. The Pacers are still about four minutes per game - the last four minutes - away from being a playoff team, but with Marquis playing at a Most Improve Player type of level, it won't be long before this team starts to finish strong and make their postseason bid.
    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10746
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.



  • #2
    Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

    Its going to be a tough decision this summer on what to do with Daniels. We have a team option for him, but its going to be around the $7 million mark. It is possible to sign him in an extension now? Something for like 3 years $15 million?
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
      Its going to be a tough decision this summer on what to do with Daniels. We have a team option for him, but its going to be around the $7 million mark. It is possible to sign him in an extension now? Something for like 3 years $15 million?
      Well, I said this in the other thread, but I find it unlikely that the Pacers will pick up his option, and almost completely out of the question that they'll offer him an extension at any point this season.

      There are going to be a lot of obstacles for Marquis keeping his performance up over the course of the season. First, he has to really remain healthy for 82 games, which he's never done over the course of his career. (Even the article notes that last year, when he played his career-high 74 games, he was limited for much of the season with injury.) Second, his minutes will get squeezed if Dunleavy returns. Third, if Rush is really putting it together, Marquis will find last night's experience of watching Brandon play more commonplace. Fourth, Marquis' limitations (no outside shooting, inability to create for others, need to have the ball in his hands) will not go away.

      His problem is the price tag on the option, coupled with the amount of money and interest we're going to have invested in Danny, Junior, and Brandon. Seven million dollars is too much to pay for an insurance policy.

      However, if he continues to play well, Dunleavy returns healthy, and Rush continues to develop, he could end up being a nice asset to deal for some inside help.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

        If he continues his play until the all star break and depending on when MDJ returns it may be worth the 7 mil to extend him. With him finally being healthy it shows what he can do.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

          I know the question may appear stupid and such a scenario highly unlikely to happen but could it be possible not to pick up his option and still re-sign him to a lesser deal (especially in terms of complying with the CBA)?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

            Originally posted by BKK View Post
            I know the question may appear stupid and such a scenario highly unlikely to happen but could it be possible not to pick up his option and still re-sign him to a lesser deal (especially in terms of complying with the CBA)?
            Thats what I was asking earlier. Maybe we could sign him for 3 years $15 million?
            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

              I would advocate moving him near the trade deadline this winter, so we fill a need or if possible get something like a pick. His play at the very least is raising his worth in a trade now.

              Why trade him? Because I think we are well set at both the SG, SF and the PG positions now and is only going to get better with Rush's development.

              Regards,

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

              2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

              2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                I would advocate moving him near the trade deadline this winter, so we fill a need or if possible get something like a pick. His play at the very least is raising his worth in a trade now.

                Why trade him? Because I think we are well set at both the SG, SF and the PG positions now and is only going to get better with Rush's development.

                Regards,

                Mourning
                Are you completely sold that he should be moved, and not Dun?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                  Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                  Are you completely sold that he should be moved, and not Dun?
                  Yes. I like Daniels, but he brings no credible ranged threat and with TJ and Jack not being specialists either I want my starting SG to be able to be a threat from downtown. I realize that Dun Dun isn't a very good individual defender and Daniels is better at creating his own shot and driving, but I do think Dun is a decent team defender, has the range and accuracy that makes it harder for opponents to double team Danny or crowd the lane for drives towards the basket.

                  And on top of that he has much better handles and a much better, in-game, vision then Quis. Nothing against Daniels, but you have to deal either of the two and you have to keep the one who does most of the things that you value highly.

                  I prefer Dun at this point.

                  Regards,

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

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                    Originally posted by BKK View Post
                    I know the question may appear stupid and such a scenario highly unlikely to happen but could it be possible not to pick up his option and still re-sign him to a lesser deal (especially in terms of complying with the CBA)?
                    Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                    Thats what I was asking earlier. Maybe we could sign him for 3 years $15 million?
                    Though I can find no specific discussion of what happens when a team does not pick their option, I believe what happens is that the player becomes an unrestricted free agent, but the team retains their "Bird Rights". Therefore, (I believe) the Pacers could elect to not pick up the option, then bid for Daniels' services on the open market. In theory, the Pacers could then offer a 3-year, $15mm deal, but could be outbid by another team. If Daniels plays well enough for us to want to do that, then somebody will throw the MLE at him.

                    The Pacers could offer a 3 year, $15mm extension, but that wouldn't start until the following summer. The extension would force us to pick up the option, as that is the final year of the current contract. Then, we'd be on the hook for another three years after that, four in total.

                    NBA contracts of four or more years can be renegotiated after the third anniversary of the signing, but, (a) the team has to be under the cap, and (b) the renegotiation cannot be a pay cut or contain fewer seasons.

                    I would again say that there is virtually no chance that we will sign Daniels to a contract that goes beyond next year. At the start of next summer, we'll have $20mm invested in Dunleavy and $60-64mm invested in Granger. We'll also have Brandon Rush, who appears to be headed towards a solidly successful rookie campaign.

                    There remains the possibility that we will pick up Daniels' option. However, that would mean certainly mean no Rasho re-signing (not a huge deal), possibly no Jack (I wouldn't be happy about that), and certainly no ability to sign any FA to address our holes.

                    As to the moving Daniels vs. Dunleavy, everything points to moving Daniels. Basically, if we decided that we wanted to keep Daniels over Dunleavy, that would probably be because of one of two things: (a) Dunleavy couldn't come back healthy, or (b) Dunleavy reverted back to his GS performance. In either case, Dunleavy would basically become unmovable. If Dunleavy comes back and plays the way he did last year, we'll want to keep Junior over Quis. Plus, Daniels would be in the ultimate "sell high" situation. Playing well, relatively young, short, mid-priced contract.

                    I don't know if Dunleavy will be able to return this year, but I believe that even if he's out for most (or all) of the season, the Pacers will be far more likely to take the chance on Rush and a recovering Dunleavy than for us to invest the money it will likely cost us to keep Daniels, thus removing almost all other options.

                    If Dunleavy gets back by the start of the year, and Daniels continues to play well, I would think the possibility of Daniels being dealt at the deadline would increase exponentially.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                      Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                      I would advocate moving him near the trade deadline this winter, so we fill a need or if possible get something like a pick. His play at the very least is raising his worth in a trade now.

                      Why trade him? Because I think we are well set at both the SG, SF and the PG positions now and is only going to get better with Rush's development.

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      If Dun remains injured, then we're not stacked at the SG/SF position, we'll only have Granger, Rush and Graham (and maybe Jack if you want to consider him a SG). If we trade Daniels around the trade deal line, can we rely on Rush to start at SG and have only Graham as their backup?
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                        Even though I've been in the camp that says Daniels is a knucklehead that
                        needs to be moved, thanks to his play this season my stance has been
                        softening and have been delighted by the contributions he's been bringing.

                        If he continues to stay away from trouble and keeps up his current rate of
                        production, he may well earn enough of a pardon for past transgressions for
                        me to jump on the Quis bandwagon and even argue for possibly keeping him.

                        He's clearly trying to make things right, and his efforts are greatly appreciated.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                          You're not getting MD for $5m a year at this point.

                          Dun is NOT back yet and hasn't proven his 3Pt shot has recovered from the injury.


                          Count and I just have polar opposite opinions on the value of Dun and Quis, but let me throw this into the mix. Which TEAM do you like more, the one led by Dun having a career year or the one with Quis having the career year? I realize the roster is better overall too, but still Dun had a brilliant offensive season and that team still stunk...badly. Are those trades so great that losing your star player makes zero negative impact and actually leaves the team playing much better in fact?

                          Dun costs the team 9, 9.7 and 10.5. Is Quis putting up the SAME numbers (except the 3pt shot but with much better SG defense) really not worth $7m if Dun is worth $9m?

                          Come on, this isn't close. People said last year that Dun's numbers finally made him "fairly" paid. I wouldn't quite buy into that, but okay for the argument. If that's the case then Quis is an obvious extension. And that still lets you remove him sooner than Dun from the books if you want.



                          Now if they'd listened to me and traded Dun this summer they wouldn't have $29m going out to a player that doesn't appear to be on track to play till well into 2009 and who remains at a position of depth for this team, enough to be shoehorned into the SG role instead.

                          we'll have $20mm invested in Dunleavy
                          Why not $20m in the guy they traded Dun for instead. Certainly you should be able to get $16m of PF for Dun if he's so great. Then you keep Quis, let Rush push him for the starters role and your team is much more well rounded.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 11-28-2008, 11:31 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                            Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                            If Dun remains injured, then we're not stacked at the SG/SF position, we'll only have Granger, Rush and Graham (and maybe Jack if you want to consider him a SG). If we trade Daniels around the trade deal line, can we rely on Rush to start at SG and have only Graham as their backup?

                            You might as well take Graham out of the equation, b/c he's never going to get any PT. My feeling is you trade Daniels b4 the trade deadline for a PF. Then this off season look to sign a player like Morris Almond. JMOAA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Daniels: The Case For Most Improved

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              Count and I just have polar opposite opinions on the value of Dun and Quis, but let me throw this into the mix. Which TEAM do you like more, the one led by Dun having a career year or the one with Quis having the career year? I realize the roster is better overall too, but still Dun had a brilliant offensive season and that team still stunk...badly. Are those trades so great that losing your star player makes zero negative impact and actually leaves the team playing much better in fact?
                              Well, this is specious reasoning. The total upgrade on the roster from last season, particularly the Jan/Feb version is gigantic. The point guard position alone is night and day. Also, Brandon Rush is a huge upgrade over Kareem, and Rasho and Murphy are playing better and more consistently than the bigs played last year (particularly early season 07-08 Troy).

                              Also, we wouldn't be as competitive if Daniels was playing this year as he did last. Yes, he and his play are helping the team. Basically, Daniels has filled the role, or at least the production provided by Dunleavy. However, your implication here is that if Dunleavy were healthy and playing as he did last year, that this team would somehow be worse. At best, that's wild speculation, at worst, that's utter nonsense.

                              Dun costs the team 9, 9.7 and 10.5. Is Quis putting up the SAME numbers (except the 3pt shot but with much better SG defense) really not worth $7m if Dun is worth $9m?

                              Come on, this isn't close. People said last year that Dun's numbers finally made him "fairly" paid. I wouldn't quite buy into that, but okay for the argument. If that's the case then Quis is an obvious extension. And that still lets you remove him sooner than Dun from the books if you want.
                              Well, this argument is misleading, too. At no point did I say Quis wasn't worth $7mm. I commented that if he'd hit the open market, playing as he is now, someone would throw the full MLE at him. (While you could argue that he is "worth" more, I simply don't see anyone with sufficient cap space making him their major free agent acquisition at $8 or $9mm per year...sometimes players get helped by their market (Danny), sometimes they get screwed by their market (Quis, Bonzi, etc.).)

                              What I have basically been saying is that Quis at $7mm is a luxury we can't afford. After this season, we have $20mm tied up Junior and $64mm tied up in Danny. We also appear to believe that Brandon Rush has a significant amount of promise. For the 2009 season, just picking up Daniels' option would mean that we'd have $29mm (or 45-50%) of our cap tied up in the 2/3 positions. We'd have little or no flexibility to add a MLE FA, and our most marketable asset would probably be, you guessed it, Marquis.

                              If Dunleavy had been in an option or contract year last year, I would've been resistant to an extension for the same reason that I'm resistant to investing more years in Daniels. The production is an anomaly to their careers. However, the problem is that the money is spent for Dunleavy.

                              Now if they'd listened to me and traded Dun this summer they wouldn't have $29m going out to a player that doesn't appear to be on track to play till well into 2009 and who remains at a position of depth for this team, enough to be shoehorned into the SG role instead.
                              Well, there were persistent rumors at the deadline last year that Bird was shopping Junior, but there were no takers. As we've discussed before, I have no moral objection to trading Dunleavy, as long as we get value. However, what's value? I wouldn't consider, as you suggested, a Roy Hibbert-type mid-to-late 1st round pick and cap filler as value.

                              There are a number of ways that Daniels could be back next year, but most of them strike me as bad scenarios:

                              1. Dunleavy is gone for the year and his career is in question. The option on Daniels is picked up.

                              2. Dunleavy returns but has clearly "lost a step." The injury appears to have materially and permanently impaired his career. The option on Daniels is picked up.

                              3. Marquis beats out Dunleavy, and Rush backslides it is questionable as to whether he'll ever be a significant contributor.

                              The first three are all pretty much bad scenarios for the Pacers. They basically mean that they've lost what little flexibility they had and put more financial pressure on an economically weak franchise without getting better on the floor (or at least adding pieces).

                              4. Dunleavy returns and plays well enough that they can trade him for that young big that we'd like to have. Daniels and Rush are expected to hold down the 2.

                              I'm fine with this, but I still don't see an extension for Daniels, just the option being picked up. If the Pacers have any faith at all in Rush, the clock will be ticking on Daniels. (In fact, I think that if Rush could string together a month to six weeks of play like he's done over the past 5 games or so, I firmly believe Obie will at least give Brandon Quisy's crunch time minutes, if not his starting job, before the end of this season. Granted, that also would affect Dunleavy.)

                              My doubt isn't because I hate Daniels as a player or a person. It's basically centered around the fact that the best case scenario is for Dunleavy to return healthy and productive, Rush to continue to improve, the team to mesh, and for Daniels to become, for lack of a better word, unnecessary. BTW...I'm pretty sure Bird and the Pacers FO aren't far away from that POV, too. Practically, it gives them the most options to improve.

                              At this point, we don't know what's going to happen. There's a very real possibilty that by March or April, I'll agree that it's necessary, even desirable, to bring Marquis back. However, I think that last year's Dunleavy is a better player than this year's Daniels. Regardless of that, I can't imagine wanting the Pacers to land in the position where Dunleavy is a dead contract, and they have to spend the extra money on Daniels.

                              [EDIT - Most of this argument could be applied to re-signing Rasho, as well. There are pros and cons, but I think the basic plan for the Pacers FO is to let Rasho walk, and continue the transition of Roy with Foster starting for awhile. As much better off than they were (financially) coming into the summer, they still aren't footloose and fancy free. Quis and Rasho might be problems they're happy to have, but they're still problems. Well, at least complications or dilemmas.]
                              Last edited by count55; 11-28-2008, 12:45 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X