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: The War Room on draft night

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

    Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

    I wanted to go thru some of the likely preparation strategies that I am sure that the Pacers management team is going thru in advance of the 2009 draft on Thursday, June 25.

    By now, all player evaluation is likely over. All the film has been watched, scouting reports (ranging from those collected in the last weeks from all the way back when these kids were in high school) have been typed and prepared, and distributed to all relevant front office personnel people. As they say, "the hay is in the barn" as far as on court analysis of these kids by now.

    Since this winter, the Pacers road scouts have been following their favorite players from gyms and arenas across the country. Their European scouting departments have been bouncing across the continent from small country to small country, trying to close their eyes and imagine what an 18-19 yr old foriegn teenager will look like at 23 living in Indianapolis.

    These players coaches have been interviewed extensively by now. Most likely, films of the individual PRACTICES have been watched also, trying to judge the players everyday work ethic and coachability. NBA teams do extensive background checks as well these days, so likely our investigators have done deep background checks on associates, family members, teachers, professors, old girlfriends, etc etc. An extensive playing and personal dossier has no doubt been compiled on ever player.

    Of course, our teams brass has been to private workouts all across the country and in Europe, and have invited certain kids in to Indianapolis for a visit. The second round kids we brought in were most likely favorites of some of our individual scouts, who tend to develop deep likings for certain players, sometimes for odd and unexplainable reasons...it becomes personal for them.

    We probably have done intelligence tests, mock press conferences, and created situations for players to interact with each other and/or our current players just to try and judge a teenagers personality.....not an easy thing to do if you ask any parent or high school teacher, and yet each franchise has millions of dollars riding on the outcome of these examinations.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next step of course is self scout your own team, have a rolling three year financial plan, and try to judge your own team's weaknesses both now and in the future. The best teams plan years in advance, while others tend to think about things year to year. Teams like us (who are somewhere in the middle) have to try and balance both immediate and future goals.......

    Make no mistake, the weaknesses we view the team as having right this minute are obvious to everyone...our front office isn't asleep at the wheel. But they need the focus on the now, and at the same time need to focus on things like who can play point guard for us in 2013, or who is our PF in 2012? The future shapes the present, and the present shapes the future...it's a tricky business that needs smart people in the room.

    You have to be able to think on multiple levels. Concerns like this: "If we draft a wing player, how does that effect Rush's confidence...does he become worse because of that?" If we draft a big guy, can that guy play at the same time as Roy Hibbert? Does the player we draft "compliment" our core, or do they hinder it? If we draft a point guard and get rid of one of our current ones, how does that effect our chemistry as a unit? Could this player live in the midwest? How will this player adjust to being suddenly rich, having basketball as a job, living alone in a strange city? Can a guy who has been a star his whole life handle sitting on the bench of need be, and will he be a good teammate or a cancer? Can the player we draft handle failure, being yelled at, or struggling against bigger tougher men who eat rookies alive?

    All these things, and more, have got to be considered. This is the type of information that none of us have at our disposal, but the teams now do.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each team will have a draft board. Players with any personality issues or red flags will be dropped in the order, or perhaps taken off altogether. Need, long term potential, positional scarcity, your opponents strengths, how each guy fits, and a dozen other factors affect the order. Right now here is mine, using only players I feel will be there, or potentially will be there at #13. The Pacers, and your own, actual draft boards could easily be different of course:

    1. James Johnson
    2. Gerald Henderson
    3. Terrence Williams
    4. Ty Lawson
    5. Eric Maynor
    6. Brandon Jennings

    I would have Clark lower due to effort concerns, Budinger low because I don't think he can play, and Flynn low because I don't like the doubts I have about his defensive long term viability or judgment offensively. I have Teague and Holliday below these guys because I think they are combination guards and not point guards. I have Daye and Mullins substantially lower than this because I dont think they help me at all next year, the year after, or maybe even the year after that....too long term projects for me.

    I have very limited personal information on Jennings, so I rank him 6th, below the other 2 point guards. The Pacers have good European scouts and have interviewed and investigated Jennings thoroughly I am sure. If he is higher on our boards than this, I can't argue with due to my lack of film on him...that would be where faith in my front office would have to come into play......which I have.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    No trade scenarios just appear out of the blue on draft night. Due to the nature of blabber mouth agents and talkative coaches, along with good old fashioned reporting and reasoning, the Pacers will almost surely have an extremely good idea of what each team will do by Tuesday afternoon at the latest. We won't know, but Bird and Morway will.

    I'm sure the Pacers have already walked through many many different scenarios, and have a contingency plan in place for all of them. All potential deals are going to be in place likely by Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, ready to execute on draft night. There will be no surprises to our front office people.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Pacers already have a "wink and a nod" agreement in place with Jack at some predetermined price ( a likely scenario most likely) then the decision on whether to draft a point guard will depend on trading TJ Ford. Moving Ford makes sense if and only if you think that:

    A. Jack is good enough to be an immediate starter on a playoff team
    B. Whichever point guard you pick is ready to play back up minutes immediately and projects to long term be better than Ford
    C. Trading Ford gets you additional assets now and in the future that help you, and the payroll flexibility gained in the summer of 2010 helps you sign a free agent that summer you already have in mind.
    D. The point guard you want is either available for us to pick at #13, or is available for our trading partner to pick later in the draft behind us. If we make what appears to be a bizarre selection at #13 (Mullins or Daye come to mind) then it means we are almost surely trading that player downward to a team behind us as part of some larger deal.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lets now do like the Pacers have already done, and "game out" the following scenarios of players dropping to us at #13 that I did not list above.

    WHAT IF JORDAN HILL DROPS TO #13?

    I think most likely we would take him with the intent to keep him. I didn't do a profile study of him, so I am working with limited personal knowledge of his game, but on the surface he seems like a keeper for us in the unlikely event he slips to us. We take him, plug him in to our big man rotation for the foreseeable future, and move on with the our next plan of attack.

    WHAT IF DEMAR DEROZEN or JRUE HOLIDAY DROPS TO #13?

    This is a much more interesting scenario I think. I don't like DeRozen as a player personally, and we have little need for him the way we are structured currently. Having said that, I think it is at least possible that he falls to our spot. I like Holiday only slightly better.

    My guess is that in these scenarios, we have already identified a trade partner behind us who would salivate for a chance to get them. I'm speculating, but I would think a deal with Chicago would make some sense, as maybe they would view one of them as a long term replacement for Ben Gordon, and they have picks #16 and #26 to work with. I'm sure we have already contacted the Bulls, Pistons, and other teams just behind us to see if there is a trade match. A deal with Minnesota makes sense to me, as they have #18, #28, and expiring deals of Brian Cardinal and Mike Miller to trade along with a couple of other decent young players. Dallas is always ready to deal, and they have pick #22 and other assets. Portland is all the way down at #26, but they have a couple of very good assets besides that selection, like Outlaw for example.

    Who knows what may happen, but I am sure the Pacers have gamed out those scenarios.

    WHAT HAPPENS IF TYREKE EVANS SLIPS TO #13?

    This is a harder queston I think than the above players. I didn't do a extensive study of Evans either, but I view him as a better wing player than Rush, perhaps someday right on par with Granger. Evans looks like an eventually NBA all star level player to me, or maybe just slightly below that....he reminds me a bunch of Jalen Rose actually.

    But we has a very shady past, and we havent had good luck with Memphis kids with troubled history. I hope that the Pacers considered this possibility months ago, and have done their homework on Evans extensively so they know every single thing about him and his checkered background.

    This would an EXTREMELY tough call for me. My gut tells me that in this market, and in this particular draft, that major off court concerns would be the ONLY reason he would fall to us. As painful as it is, I think I would also probably have a deal worked out with a team below us to draft and trade him, as I would hate to risk the headlines and doubts our community of casual fans would have about a player who was involved in the things Evans was.

    Evans would bring a kings ransom in trade I think for a team behind us willing to take his baggage, perhaps even giving us a way to dump Tinsley on someone.....any team willing to roll with Evans may as well have Tinsley too. Again, Chicago in a major deal would make some sense to me....maybe getting Ty Thomas, #16 and #26 would be enough to make a deal, even if we couldn't also involve Tinsley somehow.

    No matter how unlikely, you can bet the Pacers at least by now should be doing the planning on such a "what if" scenario. One prominent NBA mock draft (nbadraft.net) has Evans slipping to #12 to Charlotte, and I personally think there is no way Larry Brown would take him, which would leave it to us.

    I doubt he gets that far, but you have to do the planning.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Is there any player in the draft worth us TRADING UP to get a few spots if the possibility occurs?

    Again, the Pacers have to be analyzing this closely. You only move up in this draft I think if you can use an existing asset....you absolutely DO NOT or SHOULD NOT, in any circumstances, trade a future pick to move up in this one.

    Jordon Hill would be the only player to me worth going up for perhaps. He seems to be the type of front court athlete who both has relatively good upside and who might also slip a little. Maybe Golden State would be a good trade partner at #7 if you so chose to make a move up. We'd have to move ahead of Charlotte for sure, and probably New Jersey and Toronto (Raptors pick #9) to get to Hill. The Knicks don't seem likely to want to move back in the draft, so we'd have to be weighing what Golden State might likely want from us at #7 to agree to move 6 spots down.

    I see a move like that as very possible from Golden State's perspective, and I view them as one of the few teams in the league who might agree to deal for Jeff Foster instead of one of our point guards. A deal involving something like Foster and #13 for Turiaf and #7 might make sense, at least it needs to be discussed. An argument could also be made to to add Jamal Crawford and Jamal Tinsley to the deal as well, although that would make each team queasy I think, and may make it too big of a move to be consummated on draft night.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those are just the scenarios I can think of...I imagine that Bird and Morway have many more that they have discussed with various teams. My guess is that the Pacers will be active on draft night, but I have no idea which direction they may go, up or down....and they may in fact make multiple draft moves, or be involved in multiple team deals.

    There is also another likely scenario, which would have us picking at #13, then trying to acquire a later selection via trade somehow in the 18-25 range. I would think some of the teams in that area who would look at a point guard would rather have a short term help in TJ Ford rather than a rookie like Maynor of Lawson, or a team looking for front court help may prefer the veteran Jeff Foster instead of an untested rookie. It isn't hard to imagine a team like Utah or Dallas prefering Foster to whatever front court rookie they could select, for example. If we can make gain a significant long term adavantage with a move like that, I am sure the Pacers will have that scenario planned as well.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main thing to remember is this: Whatever happens Thursday, it will be the result of heavy research, intensive investigation, and as part of an overall long term strategic plan....no one in our organization does anything without a plan I don't think, and I'm sure we have all sorts of contingency plans with other GM's in the league depending on how the other moving parts fall into place.



    Tbird
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-21-2009, 03:17 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

    Thanks, tbird.

    Great stuff.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

      Also, everyone should understand the needs of a properly ran public relations campaign in regards to our draft picks.

      The PR and Marketing people have to have all of their work done on several different players, so the team can immediately begin to "sell" the public and the fanbase on whomever the pick is. Press releases need to be prepared in advance, all of our spokespeople in the organization and media types need to be given their "talking points", and everyone who talks to the print press or other media need to have their stories straight. Whoever we choose, it needs to appear to be a "no brainer" from a marketing and business perspective, and selling the vision that this pick will signal is an important thing from the business and marketing point of view.

      The Pacers need to arrange immediate air time for their pick to be interviewed via satellite and/or at Conseco, and for the various media outlets around town. If the player needs polishing for things like that, we need to have people on the ground ready to provide that for them.

      One huge tip off that a deal is in process will be if the Pacers announce their selection, then follow that up with the alarming sound of silence. When no one appeared in front of us at Conseco last year following the Bayless pick, no stats, highlights, profile, biography, background, or anything immediately following the selection, the more astute of us knew that he likely wouldnt be a Pacer for more than a few minutes.

      Tbird

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

        Very nice, detailed thread. This couldn't be far off from what we're doing.

        I don't think Hill will slip because there are too many teams in front of us with a need for someone like Hill. We'd have to trade up to get him.

        I think we need these three players drafted above us to make things very interesting: Terrence Williams, Jrue Holiday, and Johnny Flynn (sp).

        I fully expect Sacramento to take Rubio if he isn't already gone.

        If we're not trading #13 and no major prospects land in our lap, I fully expect the Pacers to pick Gerald Henderson. This is not what's been suggested at all, but I see it happening.

        I would love to look at all the potential deals the Pacers have had on the table since the 2005 draft. I wonder what offers were made for Granger, as I'm sure some were available. And at the time, Granger was much more tradeable.

        I wish a team like Cleveland had a much higher pick; one they'd be willing to exchange with an expiring for Troy Murphy.


        Hope everyone has a good time at the draft party. I would LOVE to be there!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

          Thanks for bringing this last piece up TBird.

          It reminds me: for those of us not planning to be at the Fieldhouse for draft night, would one of you attendees mind "tweeting" what's presented to you all so that we can follow nuances like this?

          I for one would appreciate it.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

            No mention of Blair or Hansbrough?

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

              I think we will either trade down to get hans and another pick. This picking up that beaudonis kid. Or keeping the pick getting Johnson and getting another pick to get him.

              We store him in Europe until TJ is off the payroll.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird 2009 draft analysis: The War Room on draft night

                Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                No mention of Blair or Hansbrough?
                I do not like either player for the Pacers personally, but I probably should have mentioned why.

                I have major defensive concerns with Blair, and with how he will fit as a long term compliment to Roy Hibbert, who I view as a long term starter for us at the center position. I know many others rate him much higher than I do, and that is ok.....I just think Blair will have huge difficulty guarding his position at the next level.

                Hansbrough I view as a high energy, hustle type off your bench. I think he projects as a 9th/10th man long term on a good team, and I simply like other players I listed better. I would have no real issue if we made a deal to acquire a later pick and used it to select however.

                Hopefully that clarifies my own personal position.

                Tbird

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...
                X