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

Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

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

  • #46
    Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

    Originally posted by EmCeE View Post

    This collection of mediocre players expiring at the same time was by no mistake.

    Yeah, collecting Dun and Murphy with 4 years left on their contracts was no mistake! A case of future planning at the time? Ford had 3 years left on his contract and the Pacers traded for him so that his contract expires at the same time as Dun and Murph. I hope this is a joke, and you truly don't believe it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

      Originally posted by WetBob View Post
      PG: Ford
      SG: D. Jones
      SF: Dunleavy
      PF: Murphy
      C: S. Jones

      **shudders**
      Ford in sounds right. Solo's a bum, no way JOb is that stupid, or is he? Or, am I for thinking Solo's a bum? Who knows. I do know I'll be in the minority here when I say Murphy and Hansborough should start. Roy and a combination of Josh and Solo at PF of the bench. Solo is long, but VERY weak. He is not a Center. Neither is Troy, but we have no defense from that position anyway, so how bout' some shooting and defensive rebounding instead.

      Id like to see Dunleavy back on the pine to start games replaced by Rush for defensive reasons.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        Yeah, collecting Dun and Murphy with 4 years left on their contracts was no mistake! A case of future planning at the time? Ford had 3 years left on his contract and the Pacers traded for him so that his contract expires at the same time as Dun and Murph. I hope this is a joke, and you truly don't believe it.
        I do believe that when we aquired TJ we hoped for a good player, but also that it set us up to have over 30 million in expirings for a FA revamping. Do you honestly believe that idea never when through a business man's mind before making the deal? You say it like I believe that's the only reason we traded for Ford. Well, no. JO was the main reason we got TJ. It just worked well for us in the long run, so we pulled the trigger.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          JOB made it pretty clear that he'd given TJ a long rope that eventually ran out, and now Watson has the long rope ahead of him.
          Yes, and if you're still expecting JOB's actions to match up with his words at this point (especially when he has been very clear) this makes perfect sense. I no longer know for sure what to expect so I'll believe it when I see it!
          "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

          "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

          "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            You don't have to showcase Troy Murphy, or TJ Ford. Everyone in the league knows what kind of players they are, and what they are capable of. They aren't mysteries.
            Well, you don't have to showcase them, but you obviously get more for them if they're out throwing out double-doubles than if they're getting DNPs.
            SportsTwo.com

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

              Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
              Solo's a bum, no way JOb is that stupid, or is he? Or, am I for thinking Solo's a bum?
              I don't think Solo is a bum. Don't get me wrong - he's no world beater either. He is somewhat of a defensive presence in the paint - just under a block per game this season (.8) in limited time (14.7 mpg). He is averaging a little over 3 rebounds (3.2), a little over 4 points (4.2). He has a reliable face-up mid-range jumper, probably the best of our big men in that category.

              You're right that he's not big or strong enough to be a real center but in certain situations he could play a little C. I'd like to see him get consistent playing time so that we really know what we have there, but that's not new...most of the board wants that for the young guys and there isn't enough to go 'round without severely limiting the time given to the vets.
              "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

              "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

              "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                He hasn't "sat" him at all. He's merely lost his starting spot. He averages 25mins a night, and there as only been 3 games all year that he's been under 20mins.

                And like I mentioned before, he has/had been closing games out as well. Who has the quote about it's not who starts but who finishes?
                Well, in fairness Ford is probably the most salvageable of the guys we have that aren't playing well. He's playing well under his career averages, and the guy is actually only 26 years old. Unless he breaks his spine again, he's got a lot of ball ahead of him.

                From that perspective, it'd be bad to completely give up on him, and a case could probably be made that he ought to be getting the same sort of "development" minutes people expect for Tyler or Hibbert.

                That's a pretty good stat to rebuttle with (if it was even true, which it's not), when you leave out the fact that Danny has misssed 12 games, Troy 6, Mike 13, and Foster 13. Those are the guys with the most tenure (outside of Diener who hasn't played at all).
                But you can't leave out that fact. It's a fact.

                When those guys are healthy, they are the first options. There is no disputing that. JOb has publicly admitted such, when he said he was going to rely on his vets more.

                EDIT: And looking at min/g totals, no wonder what is wrong with Mike. How many games was he under the 20min limit? He's up to averaging almost 24min now.
                Well yeah, he's going to have to play his way into shape. What's the alternative? You never play him and he never gets better?

                As far as the vets, I just don't see who we're missing out on by playing them. Especially when you factor in the injuries, the kids get plenty of time. They just aren't all that great.

                I think in my ideal world, I'd probably play Ford more and Hibbert more, but that's about it.
                SportsTwo.com

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                  Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
                  Right, but you also dont want to shelf them and make it appear there is something else underlying wrong with them. Especially since they are both pretty much at the top of their value at this point. Sell high!
                  Did Troy ever have higher value than he did this last summer? No.

                  Is he traded at this point? No.

                  End of discussion. He got showcased, it didn't work, now his main value is as an expiring deal next year. And if anything his play this year has hurt more than helped, his value is decreasing by the game.


                  Same for Ford, although he took a value hit when he was sent to the bench. However I'd argue that in that period he made a good case for himself as Jason Terry and had to still be carrying decent trade value himself this summer.

                  Of course the draft was loaded with PG picks so no one wanted him. Those picks need 2-3 years to flop which means he's still stuck behind them for any team that grabbed one.

                  Add to this Bayless possibly moving into the mix, either in POR or traded, and Patty Mills eventually returning, plus at least John Wall, and you have a long list of teams developing PGs or already with strong PGs.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                    I just think Solo looks incredibily lost out there. When he knows where to rotate on defense he is really solid. He has the potential to be a solid help defender in JOb's system. He's good at blocking shots off the ball. One-on-one he looks like our worst defender in the post.

                    To me at least. He gets pushed around, and gets scored on at will. He can knock down shot from the key, but is hardly our best big man from there. Murphy is the best. His rebounding is sub-par. His shot blocking is not as effective as Hibbert's. He's turnover prone(clumsy). He's a slight
                    downgrade from Hibbert.

                    I think McRoberts could do better than Jones. McRoberts gives you the same things Solo does, but with dribbling and passing skills. The fact he has the green to shoot three's shows that he is a better shooter than Solo. He shouldn't take three's though. He works off the ball leading to a few ally-opps. We have this guy and do nothing develop him. The guy plays hard and with confidence, something I don't see in Soloman.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      I think we can all agree Roy is the most likely casualty of the starting lineup.

                      I wouldn't be totally surprised if he gives Tyler a go so Murphy can play "center".

                      WetBob's theory of Solomon isn't a bad one, either.

                      I doubt TJ starts, even with the speed comments. JOB made it pretty clear that he'd given TJ a long rope that eventually ran out, and now Watson has the long rope ahead of him.
                      Probably true with Watson, I do think we've seen him finally show frustration with his game and really bite into some of his PT when he used to not do that.

                      Problem with Solo is that he's not good enough on offense for JOB. He finally brought him back when he kinda went with the youth movement slightly (Roy, Rush decent PT, Solo back on the floor, TJ role reduced), but he didn't really run him for long stretches and IMO has starting getting the short leash with him again.

                      Frankly while I like Solo and insist that at times he must play, he isn't a starter and not quite as good as I think Peck and I saw at the preseason opener when we were both a bit thrilled with his physicality.

                      But Solo is a shot blocking specialist who does give you something of a defensive bump for a bit. That's why you keep rolling him into the game at spots.



                      Roy and Rush have struggled, partially trying to understand what's expected of them which kills both of them when it comes to confidence. We all know that's probably their biggest weakpoint.

                      BUT IMO this is the pain a coach must live with if he wants to have a better team in the long run. That's one of my issues here. The team isn't winning without them, so why does it hurt so much to lose with them? Roy and Rush can get better, we've seen them play solid games way too many times to just be random flukes.


                      If team speed means Dun at SF then I don't know what the hell is going on. TJ is your fastest PG. I don't want him out there much, but that's the truth. Rush and DJones at 2 and 3 are your quickest pair there. Hans at PF (or Dun perhaps). Solo or Foster at the 5, though my guess is Troy starts at center for awhile.

                      I think "speed" is just a shot at Roy and the low post game in general. He tried it for maybe 5-6 games and that's enough for his tastes. He couldn't make it work and he hated living with it. IMO of course.



                      McRoberts - I obviously 100% agree about his skills being overall higher than Solo, especially the obvious dribbling and passing. But then I'm the idiot that thinks he's also better than Hans and is stumped why his few good games were followed by Siberia, as if some secret about his skills was going to leak out.

                      McBob and Price are the main two players who have not been allowed to play their way back to the bench. Rush, Roy, can't argue that they've been looked over pretty good at this point. Hans has gotten tons of time. Solo is a bit lower but has had a return and is starting to rack up PT.

                      When did this team become so good and those guys so old or worthless to have proven themselves totally unworthy of any PT ever?
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 12-29-2009, 02:45 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                        Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                        I just think Solo looks incredibily lost out there. When he knows where to rotate on defense he is really solid. He has the potential to be a solid help defender in JOb's system. He's good at blocking shots off the ball. One-on-one he looks like our worst defender in the post.

                        To me at least. He gets pushed around, and gets scored on at will. He can knock down shot from the key, but is hardly our best big man from there. Murphy is the best. His rebounding is sub-par. His shot blocking is not as effective as Hibbert's. He's turnover prone(clumsy). He's a slight
                        downgrade from Hibbert.

                        I think McRoberts could do better than Jones. McRoberts gives you the same things Solo does, but with dribbling and passing skills. The fact he has the green to shoot three's shows that he is a better shooter than Solo. He shouldn't take three's though. He works off the ball leading to a few ally-opps. We have this guy and do nothing develop him. The guy plays hard and with confidence, something I don't see in Soloman.
                        I'm not sure that Solo is worse than Murph one on one defensively in the paint. Maybe. Also not entirely convinced Murph has a better mid-range jumper. He's clearly a better shooter but he generally shoots long-range jumpers or, this year, he drives toward the basket. He can probably make the mid-range J, but he doesn't take very many of them so I don't know if he's better.

                        You're right that he looks lost at times. I wonder how much of that his playing time and how much of it is that all our young guys look pretty lost at times. I don't think JOB is a good coach for young players at all for a variety of reasons well-documented in many threads. But I'm getting off track. To my mind, McBob has looked plenty lost too and his FG% in limited minutes this season - 33% - is quite a bit worse than Solo's (48%). That may be because he hasn't played enough time to really get in a rhythm, but McRoberts career shooting numbers (42.9% vs. 52.6%) are also quite a bit worse. However, I do concede that McRoberts is clearly a superior passer/ball handler.

                        All that said, I'm not adverse to seeing McRoberts get some floor time. I don't feel like either one of them has been on the floor enough to really know what they've got to contribute consistently in games. Hell, I doubt either of them really knows, considering how little they've played so far in their careers.
                        Last edited by gummy; 12-29-2009, 02:56 PM.
                        "Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus

                        "Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire

                        "Everyone's values are defined by what they will tolerate when it is done to others." - William Greider

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                          Maybe speed means Watson and TJ, starting together. I guess that could mean AJ Price being back up Point Guard.

                          However, I think Obie was absolutely talking about Roy, when he said this.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            Maybe speed means Watson and TJ, starting together. I guess that could mean AJ Price being back up Point Guard.

                            However, I think Obie was absolutely talking about Roy, when he said this.
                            Yea, when things go wrong, Obie tends to blame Roy.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                              If I were Roy, I'd be PO'ed that he's JOB's punching bag.
                              "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                              Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mike Wells just tweeted the following.

                                Originally posted by EmCeE View Post
                                I do believe that when we aquired TJ we hoped for a good player, but also that it set us up to have over 30 million in expirings for a FA revamping. Do you honestly believe that idea never when through a business man's mind before making the deal? You say it like I believe that's the only reason we traded for Ford. Well, no. JO was the main reason we got TJ. It just worked well for us in the long run, so we pulled the trigger.
                                They 100% are not going into the FA market. Why does anyone think this?

                                All this "just wait till contracts come off the books" stuff has been slammed long ago with great posts and threads by people like Count.


                                Those contracts coming off the books only puts the team into a SAFE salary range with some flexability for trading or minor signings as needed. The FA market for top end guys is a disaster nearly every time. What team has ever signed one of the top 4-5 guys on the market, the $8m+ type of guys, and gotten their money's worth?

                                Does anyone think Peja was a fair pay? Or even Brad Miller?

                                How many top tier FA's led their team to titles? Give me Kobe for Divac, Shaq for 4 Heat players, KG for Jefferson or the Lebron, Wade, Duncan picks.

                                Right now Hedo/Jack and ChuckV/Gordon have their new teams doing nothing special.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X