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 officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #1

    Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

    I'm a bit flabergasted by this. It's one thing to talk about this in his blog (which I'm guessing he has), but it's quite another to write an article that discusses (though certainly does not endorse) the notion of tanking for the chance to get the #1 pick. In January. Before we've even played 41 games.

    Wherever you fall in the debate, it's certainly not out of bounds to talk (and surely obsess) about it now.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...solation-Prize


    John Wall: the ultimate consolation Prize

    The Indiana Pacers might end up with a shot at Kentucky freshman John Wall, but lying down against bad teams like New Jersey is not the plan.

    By Mike Wells
    mike.wells@indystar.com

    The prize is sitting there to be picked up.

    He stands 6-4. Jumps like Dwyane Wade. Passes like Steve Nash.

    John Wall, Kentucky's ultra-quick, playmaking point guard, is considered the consensus No. 1 pick in the June NBA draft if he decides to leave school early.

    Whichever team wins the draft lottery could pick Wall and be set at that position for years.

    The New Jersey Nets have the league's worst record, but the worst team is by no means a lock to win the lottery. The Indiana Pacers are in the mix. The teams play tonight in New Jersey.

    Pacers fans are torn. Many celebrate victories and hope for the playoffs. Others realize every loss helps their lottery odds. They would rather see the Pacers tank than sneak into the playoffs or, worse, just miss like the three previous seasons, and land another draft pick in the mid-teens.

    As tempting and franchise-altering as winning the lottery and first shot at Wall might be, those associated with the team -- from president Larry Bird on down -- are chasing another prize: the playoffs.

    "I'm near the top of the list of players that have never made it. I want to get there," said forward Troy Murphy, who has played 577 games without a playoff appearance.

    The Pacers certainly are playing like they hope to delay summer vacation.
    They came from 23 points down against Toronto and 24 down against Phoenix to win their previous two games.

    "It's coming together, but we still need a complete team effort where we get everyone involved," point guard Earl Watson said. "We have to find a way to get everyone going offensively and defensively. We have to be aggressive, be edgy, get deflections, block shots, transition points and create tempo."

    The Pacers have two things going against them in trying to secure their second three-game winning streak this season.

    They have dropped nine consecutive road games and 15 of their past 16. They also have a bad habit of following impressive victories with uninspiring losses.

    "We can't lose to New Jersey," forward Danny Granger said. "We haven't taken advantage of these types of opportunities in the past. It's a game we absolutely cannot lose because we've got a little bit of momentum."

    The Pacers have recently started playing -- offensively at least -- the way they envisioned.

    Coach Jim O'Brien is playing at least four shooters as much as possible to try to keep the opponent's defense honest. He said his best lineup has only one big man -- Troy Murphy or Roy Hibbert.

    The Pacers scored 70 points and shot nearly 57 percent in the second half of Wednesday night's 122-114 victory against the Suns.

    Granger and Mike Dunleavy, who both missed an extended amount of time early in the season, combined for 63 points and nine 3-pointers in the game.

    "This team was built with certain ingredients," O'Brien said. "When you play most of the season without those ingredients, it has a traumatic effect on you. When they come back and start to get acclimated to each other again, you're going to see a much better brand of basketball."

    Hibbert continues to show signs of complementing shooters on the perimeter. He is averaging 15 points and 6.2 rebounds in the past nine games.

    "When you have a guy that can score inside with the effectiveness of Roy, then you have guys that have shot over 40 percent from the 3 and aggressive point guards and you're healthy, you can see where you are and how the plan is coming together," O'Brien said. "The fact of the matter is we have Danny, Mike and Troy all healthy at the same time and you have a developing center."

    Additional Facts
    Pacers at New Jersey Nets
    • Tipoff: 8 p.m. today, Izod Center.
    • TV: Fox Sports Indiana.
    • Radio: WFNI-1070 AM.
    Pregame MVP: Granger is averaging 25 points since returning from a foot injury. He had 33 points and eight rebounds against Phoenix on Wednesday.
    • Prediction: Pacers by 12. They'll avoid playing down to the level of their competition and win three games in a row for just the second time this season.
    • Injury update: Jeff Foster (back) is out.
    • Charity game Sunday: Earl Watson is hosting "Annesha's Angels Celebrity Basketball Game" at 3 p.m. Sunday at Lawrence Central High School to raise money for an Indianapolis family, whose 5-year-old daughter, Annesha Wilson, died in a July fire. Tickets are $10.

    -- Mike Wells
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

    I have to admit I'm torn between hoping the team gets a 4-8 pick and the team winning the rest of the season. My delimma is if the Pacers had NOT been losing like they have been the 1st have of the season, I would want to finish strong, but they have a opportunity to get a really nice pick if they continue as they have played the previous 36 games. Compound that with the fact that even winning 25 of the next 44 games with a record of 38-44 doesn't guarantee a playoff berth, but it does guarantee another mid-teen pick that spells another mediocre rotational player to me. I'm tired of getting mid-teen picks. I'm tired of losing too. At this point in the season, I know what my preferrence has to be.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

      It is not out of bounds, but hasn't the topic been discussed to death over the years. it just bores me anymore
      Last edited by Unclebuck; 01-15-2010, 01:10 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

        Considering we reasonably can assume several players are not part of the future, and considering how much I'd prefer to see a new coach and this current direction come to an end, and considering we'd have almost 0% chance of advancing in the playoffs... those are all good reasons to shoot for a high draft pick now. Try and make something of a lost season to give the fans and franchise something look forward to in the future besides at best an early playoff loss as a team that was not bad enough to finish worse than some other bad teams in a weak conference.

        The downside is we've been losing for so long, and turned off so many fans in the aftermath of the brawl with the players we were left with after Reggie's retirement, and failed to already utilize those prior lost seasons to shoot for a better draft pick rather than going for an outside crack at the playoffs... that we're in a no-man's land as far as the stability of the franchise in Indpls itself.
        Last edited by Bball; 01-15-2010, 11:48 AM.
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

          There's not a lot of drama here because it's 100% clear which way the franchise leans on this, from Bird, to O'Brien, to the players, they want to go for the playoffs, and if the last two games suggest things to come, they're going to have a shot in this terrible conference.

          Everyone who wants to wish for tanking is just exercising futility.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

            For me, it's heart vs. head.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

              Sorry guys but if you're really looking towards the future, a 25% chance of drafting a guy who will make you a contender and fill the stands compared to a 0% chance of winning in the playoffs this season seems like the better choice to me.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                There's not a lot of drama here because it's 100% clear which way the franchise leans on this, from Bird, to O'Brien, to the players, they want to go for the playoffs, and if the last two games suggest things to come, they're going to have a shot in this terrible conference.

                Everyone who wants to wish for tanking is just exercising futility.
                As long as O'Brien is coach... We've got a shot... at the lottery...

                Just gotta keep spreading the defense at all 5 positions....
                Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                ------

                "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                -John Wooden

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                  I'd much rather have 25 wins and a top-5 pick with a legit shot at #1, rather than 35 wins and a pick between 9-12 with close to zero shot at #1 (or even the top-3).

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                    I don't read anything in the article "sanctioning" the move, either as Wells' opinion or from the team or front office. Did I miss something?

                    It also begs a question - if the East sucks so bad and we have a record poor enough to "just miss" the playoffs, wouldn't we end up with a better position than in previous years? The teams that miss the playoffs are ranked by record against each other for the lottery position, not by finish in their conference.
                    BillS

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

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                      We can discuss it all we want, but no one in the Pacers organization is going to take the tank option.

                      The plan has been talked about a lot here also....two-fold goals: 1) Make the play-offs. 2) Continue to develop the younger players. That's not going to change anytime soon.

                      The infusion of top talent that folks are wishing for is going to have to come from within by player development, or as a result of more funds being available in 2011 / 2012 to acquire proven talent.


                      [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        I don't read anything in the article "sanctioning" the move, either as Wells' opinion or from the team or front office. Did I miss something?
                        Wells didn't 'sanction the move'... he simply broached the subject officially in his writing at the Star thus implicitly sanctioning the discussion or the topic itself.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                          It's been debated and I've yet to read anything close to a compelling argument for doing so. The evidence of the futility of it goes on and on...


                          I just ran through the Celtics and how they rebuilt, 3 of their 4 players came from picks 10, 15 and 21. Only Jeff Green, the #5 pick, got them Ray Allen, and the cost was tanking so bad they were the 2nd worst team in a draft where the #2 player was Durant. So Ray is nice, but was Ray a make or break guy? He's not the same as getting Durant, so they lost big time when they played that lottery.

                          The Lakers got Kobe with Vlade, and Kobe was not a top 10 pick. They got a #1 pick by clearing tons of cap space for Shaq, but they didn't have to tank to do that and had been moderately competitive in the years leading up to it. FACT - Kobe and Shaq only improved the Lakers by 3 wins, going from 53 the year before (and 48 before that) to 56. OTHER FACT - They couldn't reach the Finals despite being one of the top West teams for 3 straight seasons, then brought in Phil Jackson and won 3 straight.

                          Meanwhile the Magic, who had TWO top 3 picks, got 1 Finals appearance and then jack squat as they watched Shaq leave. They tried to pull the same stunt and loaded up on cap space only to see Duncan give them (and the Bulls) the cold shoulder and Grant Hill go down with injury not long after they signed him.

                          The Spurs did lottery into Duncan thanks to Robinson's season ending injury, but they drafted Parker at 30th and Manu at 57th.

                          The Pacers sat stuck at .500 with Bob Hill for 3 straight years, all first round exits. Then they went to the ECF 2 years in a row, and then without significant additions they returned to 3 straight ECFs and the Finals. Of the top 10 picks the Pacers did earn, Person, McCloud, Tisdale and Smits, only Rik contributed significantly. And that team didn't start winning till the other non elite picks came on board.

                          The idea that tanking turns you around isn't just iffy, in many many cases it's actually wrong. The Lakers and Pistons won titles without tanking.

                          The Cavs stunk and still don't have a title. Ditto post-Jordan Bulls, and they are sporting multiple elite picks including #1 Rose now in year 2. Clips, nice. Warriors, sure. Oh, Bobcats, loaded with top picks right from the day they were created.

                          The Sixers got the #1 pick, Iverson. It got them one 4-1 beatdown in the Finals after winning perhaps the weakest East of the last 30 years. Not only that, but they spent the first few years continuing on as doormats despite Iverson being there. In this era that's just the right timing for a team with cap space to lure him away for money and a better supporting cast (ahem, Lebron scenario).

                          People cite the Blazers as a model, or the Bulls from the Skiles era. "That's the way you do it"...except the Bulls flopped and stunk so bad they got Rose, basically a 2nd tank rebuild on top of the last one.

                          The Heat got Wade, so there you go. But then they stunk again, so it's not that simple. Then they get another top pick and still not that great.

                          Did the TWolves not have KG for years? #1 of titles = 0




                          Bird will do more to improve this team with picking right at #17 (Granger, all-star, Roy with promise), or in the 2nd round (Price), trading well (say, Troy for cap space), and signing smart FAs (Watson or Jones).

                          The single most damaging deal or move the team did the last decade in terms of the bottom line - WINS - was trading for Dun and Troy. Not only has Dun, a top 5 pick, not led them to a title, but the contracts of those 2 have hindered their ability to make other moves or trades.

                          I like the draft, you do get lots of help there, but trading is critical and avoiding foolishly high spending in the FA market is too (including resigns, see Arenas).
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-15-2010, 12:20 PM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                            I've never been one for tanking a season. Frankly, I think it's bad sportmanship for any team to do that. However, clearly some teams have tried and apparently have successed in doing it (i.e., the Cavs by recent accounts in drafting LeBron). Still, I think the risk for acquiring that one player through the draft in such a fashion is just too great. I mean, what if you do tank but don't get the #1 pick? Now what?

                            I think you play your best and you play to win and let the lottery ball fall where it may. If you are "fortunate" enough to be a losing team and you get the #1 pick or any pick 2-5, great! If the selection helps move your team forward, outstanding! But all one has to do is look at the Rubio situation and realize that sometimes even when you win (a high draft pick), you lose ('cause Rubio won't be playing in the NBA any time soon). In fact, of the top 10 2009 draftees only one seems to have panned out - Brandon Jennings for the Bucks at #10. In fact, other than Jennings, the only other draft pick from 1-15 I see who has made a significant impact for their team is Tyler Hansborough.

                            If that doesn't show you how crazy and risky the draft can be, nothing will!
                            Last edited by NuffSaid; 01-15-2010, 02:33 PM.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              Wells didn't 'sanction the move'... he simply broached the subject officially in his writing at the Star thus implicitly sanctioning the discussion or the topic itself.

                              -Bball
                              Ahh, OK, I missed the word "debate" in the topic.

                              The debate doesn't need sanctioning, it exists and it would be a poor reporter who didn't recognize it.
                              BillS

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

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                              Working...
                              X