Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

    With just 9 days to go until the 2009 NBA draft begins, I wanted to wrap up the draft notebook with some blurbs on some other players I took notes on, but either didnt have enough film on, or didn't project them to be seriously considered by Indiana. In a couple of cases, I just ran out of time to do something in depth on them like I would have liked. Before I clear out my draft notes however, the list below were the players I went over in excruciating detail.

    1. Ty Lawson
    2. Gerald Henderson
    3. Jrue Holiday
    4. DeJuan Blair
    5. Jonny Flynn
    6. Jeff Teague
    7. Eric Maynor
    8. Earl Clark
    9. James Johnson
    10. Terrence Williams

    I lacked film of Brandon Jennings, who appears to be a possibility for us at #13 as I write this, so I did not profile him.

    I also chose not to spend time on players who I feel have no chance to drop to us, nor was I able to do a complete breakdown of all the players that were requested of me to do by many of you reading this board.

    Despite the lack of ability and time to do my normal long winded breakdowns, I do have some wrap up thoughts on some of the players I didn't get to that I wanted to post.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    AUSTIN DAYE is a intriguing player with some pretty good potential. He has long arms, great height, and looks like he might be a decent NBA player someday. However, his extreme lack of strength and weight mean to me that he is years away from being able to help a team compete. He will need 2-3 years before he is able to even compete against some of the NBA bodies he will need to. I think he projects as a long and lean NBA small forward off someone's bench someday, maybe like Outlaw from Portland. Despite some mock drafts having us taking Daye, I see absolutely zero chance of that actually happening. Teams that think more long term or that have multiple picks may take a chance on him though. I think he made the right move coming out, as he won't get the type of coaching and competition to help him improve playing at Gonzaga.

    TYLER HANSBOROUGH will be a decent NBA player that your coaching staff is always glad to have on your team. He will help you in practice as a guy who will push your veterans to play hard, and he has some skills to really help a team as a bench role player. He is exceptional fast at changing ends, and he will be among the league leaders in garbage points if he plays enough. On cold February nights during a stretch of 3 games in 4 nights, he will come in and spark a team to a victory with his hustle and hard play. Fundamentally his footwork with the ball is excellent, despite the fact that he can't score over anyone bigger than him at this level I don't think. Utah makes alot of sense at #20 for him, and teams on either side of them may also be interested. He reminds me alot of a Luis Scola type player.

    BJ MULLINS sucks right now, quite frankly. He is weak, immature, not fundamentally sound, not a student of the game it appears, and probably has no business being in the draft at all. He can't hold his ground, doesnt have basketball instincts, and looks like a guy who only plays basketball because he is tall and is good, not because he loves it. His family is poor and he entered the draft mainly for financial reasons, so for that reason I hope he makes it, and that this move works out for him. He is 3 years away at least from being able to play in the league with any regularity of effectiveness in my opinion. The best place for him to land would be Minnesota, so he can learn under Kevin McHale in a low pressure atmosphere. At his very top side, he might end up being Darko Milicec or Joel Pryzbilla.

    WAYNE ELLINGTON is a limited player, but one who has the great skill of being able to make alot of jump shots, as he has a very sweet stroke from the perimeter, maybe the best in the entire draft. His future success is almost completely dependent on which team he ends up with, and he is set up for success potentially because he likely will go to a playoff team in the later first round....although once again I see Minnesota as a good fit at #28 perhaps. Oklahoma City, who needs players that can space the floor, makes sense to me as well. Ellington reminds me some of Craig Hodges, ex Chicago Bull.

    SAM YOUNG from Pittsburgh will be a nice, tough minded defensive stopper in the league I think. He isn't a ballhandler really, but many teams with dominant type point guards really won't need him to be. Young will add a certain toughness and swagger to a team that I really like. To me, Young makes alot of sense for the Hornets at #21, who need younger legs on the wings, and who may end up trying to trade James Posey to a contender in order to save money. He also could potentially slip to the beginning of the second round, where I would suspect some team would move up to get him.

    CHASE BUDINGER is a player we are rumored to be be interested in....I just don't see it. He is athletic, runs well, moves well, etc etc. But I don't see him as a great basketball player, he is just an athletic kid who I'm not sure loves to play. He can shoot well, and has a nice high release from the perimeter which is fun to watch. He doesnt seem to me to be able either to cut well or to be able to handle the ball well, so that leaves him as a spot up shooter type. Budinger would be a great fit perhaps for Philadelphia at #17, but I think that is too high for him personally. The Lakers at #29 seem like a good match to me, as Budinger would be a really good fit in the triangle offense, and as Trevor Ariza free agency insurance. Brent Barry seems to be the common comparable, and I can see that.

    TAJ GIBSON isnt going to be a starter, but I suspect he will be able to stay in the league for a while. Looks like a Josh Powell type to me. As in dire need as we are for anyone athletic and long on the front line, I wouldnt be suprised if we at least considered trying to cheaply buy a pick from Cleveland at the very bottom of the first round to look at a guy like Gibson, who would make our team I believe.

    DANNY GREEN I think is going to be a nice second round pick up for someone....I like his all around game, and think he was overshadowed by some really great players in the North Carolina program.

    DARREN COLLISON drove me nuts watching him on offense for UCLA, but I really really like his defensive pedigree and quickness. I think he makes a nice second round pick as a defensive point guard specialist...he can help you guard a Rondo/Parker/Paul type ultra quick point guard. I think he likely will end up with a smart team, such as the Lakers, who need someone who can defend the quicker point guards badly.....it was their biggest team weakness.

    RODRIGUE BEAUBOIS looks on paper like a fascinating second round prospect, if for no other reason than just his measurables. I've obviously never seen the young man play, but if he has any ability to play at all I bet he'd be alot of fun to watch, if for no other reason than just to watch him play defense with that gigantic wingspan. Any point guard with a wingspan like an NBA power forward would have to be considered I think, and I bet whoever takes him will be able to leave him in Europe while he develops.


    If any of you have any other comments on players I didn't do a full profile on please feel free to add them here. Or, if any of you saw the list of players above more than I did and have any impressions of them you can share, please do that as well.

    Thanks to all of you who said or wrote such nice things to me in regards to these individual draft analysis threads. I'll have a couple of more postings in regards to the draft before next Thursday, including one discussing the lost of "NBA present and past comparables" I came up with for each player, and possibly a mock draft of my own next Tuesday or Wednesday.

    At some point, all of us, just for fun, need to call our own shot in regards to who we think we both SHOULD and WILL take in the draft this year. Just for the record, I'm on board officially with saying that our single best selection/best fit/best player at #13 is James Johnson. I am still unclear if that is what I think we WILL do, but I think that is what we SHOULD do, if he is on the board still when we pick.

    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

    A final request, Tbird, would be to have you weigh in on Jordan Hill, in my opinion the one player we may be considering trading up to get (especially if he slips past Washington at #5). Having come to basketball late, he's raw, but he's certainly long and athletic, and seems to have at least some toughness.

    I'm not concerned with our eventual draftee's fit or contribution next season, but unless we trade down, I want the guy we pick to have a good chance of being a starter (maybe even a star) in two to three years. Given THE PLAN, I believe TPTB have this orientation as well. If, through trades, we could turn the #13 into two slightly-lower-first-rounders, how great it would be to strengthen our team with, say, Clark and Maynor! I'm uneasy, though, with the projected value at #13 this year, even in the form of James Johnson. So I'd love to know your opinion: Is Hill and his potential worth pursuing?


    "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

    - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

      Tbird, what do you think of a guy like Derrick Brown from Xavier in the second round? He seems like a perfect fit for some frontcourt depth. He's about 6'8" 230 with good potential and a lot of athleticism. He played great defense for Xavier and I have a feeling that will carry over to the NBA.

      Height w/o ShoesHeight w/shoesWeightWingspanStanding ReachBody FatNo Step VertMax VertBench PressLane Agility3/4 Court SprintClass Rank
      6' 7.5"6' 8.5"2257' 2.5"8' 11.5"8.630.535.52011.263.13NA


      There's a possibility he could be picked up before the 22nd pick in the 2nd round. He's been one of my darkhorses for a while though. I'd love to see us pick him up if we don't take Blair or Johnson in the first round.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

        Originally posted by HeartlandFan View Post
        Tbird, what do you think of a guy like Derrick Brown from Xavier in the second round? He seems like a perfect fit for some frontcourt depth. He's about 6'8" 230 with good potential and a lot of athleticism. He played great defense for Xavier and I have a feeling that will carry over to the NBA.

        Height w/o ShoesHeight w/shoesWeightWingspanStanding ReachBody FatNo Step VertMax VertBench PressLane Agility3/4 Court SprintClass Rank
        6' 7.5"6' 8.5"2257' 2.5"8' 11.5"8.630.535.52011.263.13NA


        There's a possibility he could be picked up before the 22nd pick in the 2nd round. He's been one of my darkhorses for a while though. I'd love to see us pick him up if we don't take Blair or Johnson in the first round.
        Wow good call. Great wingspan, good height etc.! Xavier turns out some pretty quality kids from the ones I've known. I'd be good with that.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

          TBird: IF James Johnson is gone at 13, as some believe he could be...

          then who would you want our Pacers to pick? Basically if Johnson is #1 on your draft board, who is #2, and who is #3, if you've made that decision?

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

            RODRIGUE BEAUBOIS looks on paper like a fascinating second round prospect, if for no other reason than just his measurables. I've obviously never seen the young man play, but if he has any ability to play at all I bet he'd be alot of fun to watch, if for no other reason than just to watch him play defense with that gigantic wingspan. Any point guard with a wingspan like an NBA power forward would have to be considered I think, and I bet whoever takes him will be able to leave him in Europe while he develops.
            I would like this guy as well. Apparently he tore the Euro Camp up.

            Low risk, maybe a high reward player. The scouts love him.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

              Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
              TBird: IF James Johnson is gone at 13, as some believe he could be...

              then who would you want our Pacers to pick? Basically if Johnson is #1 on your draft board, who is #2, and who is #3, if you've made that decision?

              Well, it would depend on the decisions Larry Bird makes about our point guard situation mainly.

              I liked Lawson and Maynor alot particularly at the PG, and while I didn't give him all that positive of a review I certainly can see at least a potential in Jrue Holiday, just due to his size and athleticism. But if you keep both Jack and Ford on your roster, I see no reason to pick any of them. If you decide to trade or not re-sign one of our current top 2 point guards, then selecting one of the above listed makes sense, as would Brandon Jennings if he happens to drop....even though I haven't seen him play, I assume most scouts are correct in saying he has Kenny Anderson/Tony Parker type of ball skills.

              Assuming you do re-sign Jack and keep Ford, then you eliminate all the point guards from your thinking I believe. If you assume for the purposes of this exercise that Johnson is gone as well, then I'd have a major decision to make: Take the player who I think is more of a sure thing in Gerald Henderson (high quality individual, great program, great background, but no star potential and unlikely to be a starter for us) vs gambling on a player who fits our needs more, but who has attitude/playing hard questions lingering over him in Earl Clark. Because of his defensive limitations pairing together with both Troy Murphy and Roy Hibbert, I am not that interested in Dejuan Blair, as I described in detail in my draft profile of him.

              My decision would be that you never take a player who you have to coach to play hard consistently, so I'd probably take Henderson personally, which is exactly what I think Indiana will do as well.

              The really fun scenario for draft night is going to be if the Pacers take a PG at #13, but then either have not announced a trade of Ford yet nor announce any publicity to the crowd at Conseco about the pick.....if the Pacers pick a player at #13 then don't immediately start the PR stuff about him on the ground at the arena to the fans in attendance, there likely is a deal being negotiated behind the scenes.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                T-Bird:

                Your picks are very similar to mine. I would like to see Bird get a 2nd 1st pick, but I don't see the Simons "doling" out the money to buy one as Walsh's Dolan would. To me if the Pacers get another pick it will be thru a trade... maybe a trade of the 13th to Minnie for their 18 and 28 picks. Something like that. I just don't see the Pacers having much to trade with no expirings except possibly Foster. From what I have read most teams are wanting to trade large contracts to get better off financially, and the Pacers can't afford that. My guess is Bird isn't going to get any type of trade done, and the 13th & 52nd picks are what the Pacers will end up having when it's all done. That's why to me it's imperative for Bird to pick the right player with the 13th. He's under the gun to make the right choice.

                It's always a possibility that the Pacers could trade Ford. A Ford & 13th to Minnie for Cardinal, Craig Smith, and the 18th & 28th pick would work. It gives Minnie the PG they need to go along with Foye and the 13th pick to go along with their #6 pick. The Pacers could pick up Maynor at 18 and maybe Sam Young/Pendergraph/Budinger at 28th. I also would ask to flip the 09 2nd picks of Pacers #52 for Minnie's #46. I believe this is a reasonable trade for both. David Kahn with his Pacer connection is looking to make a big splash in the draft.
                Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-17-2009, 09:00 AM.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                  Ford/Foye would be one smaaaaallll backcourt. Wasn't Miami trying to deal Marion for Ford last summer? They could be interested still, as Ford could give Wade a break from all of his ball handling duties, and be able to create his own offense better than most of their roster. Chalmers could come off the bench.

                  Haslem for Ford works straight up. Miami could run with Ford/Wade/Jones/Beasley/O'Neal which could be a solid lineup in the East if Beasley improves. He could cause matchup problems as a perimeter 4, and this gets him more minutes. They'd still have to upgrade the roster, but they'd be trading a 29 year old PF for a 26 year old PG. It at least makes some sense for both teams to me, IF the Pacers want to pick up Lawson or another PG at 13.

                  I still think JJ is the best way to go, but I'd be happy with Lawson too now.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                    I agree with you T-Bird that our likely pick is James Johnson, SF/PF, Wake Forest. If he's not available, I think we'll go with Gerald Henderson, SG/SF, Duke. If he's not there, we'll go DeJaun Blair, PF, Pitt. If all three of those are gone (which is a nightmare scenario for us IMHO) we'll probably go with Ty Lawson, PG, North Carolina (not an ideal pick for me but I think TPTB like him).

                    Those are my top 4 likely picks for the Pacers. All of this is assuming that Brandon Jennings, PG, Italy, doesn't drop. I like T-Will but I'm betting we stay away from him unless the drat board is just somehow gutted, and if we do draft him, he'll be on another team by the end of the night.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                      Maybe I don't see the same value in Henderson, but to me he would always be a backup 2. IMO you can always find those, and while he may become like Raja Bell or something I just think the Pacers would want more than that. He could back up the 2 and 3 (maybe) but if Dunleavy is healthy, I just don't think he'd upgrade our roster much. But I'm not as high on him as some. I like his character and athleticism.

                      Honestly, after last year's draft, I'll trust in whomever the front office deems to be the best choice at 13. If they think it's Blair, I'll believe them, even if I like JJ and Lawson more. If they like Henderson, then by all means. I think we're on the right track and I'll support anyone we get at 13.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                        Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                        Maybe I don't see the same value in Henderson, but to me he would always be a backup 2. IMO you can always find those, and while he may become like Raja Bell or something I just think the Pacers would want more than that.
                        In this weak draft, a Raja Bell would be alright with me. Danny Granger is an All-Star, Brandon Rush is starting to show Robin tendencies, and Hibbert is probably going to be a pretty productive center. A physical 6th man would look nice with our young core.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                          TBird, thanks for the post....but I'm surprised that you didn't include Jeff Pendegraph in your list.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                            TBird, thanks for this series. You're not only as good or better as the draft specialists but you focus on the Pacers and the prospects for our team. Absolutely invaluable.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis #11: Best of rest, 2nd round possibilities, and officially calling my shot on who we should draft

                              Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                              TBird, thanks for this series. You're not only as good or better as the draft specialists but you focus on the Pacers and the prospects for our team. Absolutely invaluable.
                              No kidding. I've really been looking forward to reading these. I appreciate that t-bird looks for hidden attributes in players (motivation, skills that may be misused by coaches, etc.). It's especially good for those of us that only see limited college basketball.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X