Tweet
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Go ahead PacerGuy.
Go ahead PacerGuy.
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.
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
-
"A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman Rushdie -
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Sorry if this is a bit rushed, but....
The Big 3 are getting older & need some help. It was suppose to be the "Big 4", but Jefferson was a bust. His biggest asset to the team at this point is his expiring deal.
The Spurs could go big, & Aldi & Orton would be intruging options, but it is not a pressing "need". While size is always a desired when battling LA & the likes, so is scoring and perimeter defense.
That said, SA needs a SF, & the ability to play some SG would be a bonus. They need someone who can spread the floor, & any catch & shooter should have success w/ T.Duncan on the floor. That kind of player is still left on the board, & the Spurs are exstatic!
The SA Spurs select: James Anderson, SF/ Oklahoma St."Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
Try again. Anderson I believe was picked by the Chicago Bulls at #17 in this draft.
Maybe somebody should summarize all the picks, just this is easier to keep track of for everyone.
TbirdComment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
picks can be seen on the original postOriginally posted by thunderbird1245 View PostPeck is basically omniscient when it comes to understanding how the minds of Herb Simon and Kevin Pritchard work. I was a fool to ever question him and now feel deep shame for not understanding that this team believes in continuity above talent.Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
1 - Washington - Avoidingtheclowns - John Wall, PG, Kentucky
2 - Philadelphia - LoneGranger33 - Evan Turner, SG, The Ohio State University
3 - New Jersey - Travmil - Derrick Favors, PF, Georgia Tech
4 - Minnesota - BRushWithDeath - DeMarcus Cousins, C, Kentucky
5 - Sacramento - Rupert Stilinski - Wesley Johnson, SF, Syracuse
6 - Golden State - Pig Nash - Greg Monroe, C, Georgetown
7 - Detroit - 90'sNBARocked - Ed Davis, PF, North Carolina
8 - LA Clippers - Tbird - Paul George, SG/SF, Fresno State
9 - Utah - Speed - Al-Farouq Aminu, SF, Wake Forest
10 - Indiana - Count55 - Ekpe Udoh, PF/C, Baylor
11 - New Orleans - Pacers74 - Xavier Henry, SG, Kansas
12 - Memphis - Mellifluous - Luke Babbitt, SF, Nevada
13 - Toronto - GrangeRusHibbert - Hassan Whiteside, PF/C, Marshall
14 - Houston - Mr. Sobchak - Cole Aldrich, C, Kansas
15 - Milwaukee - Trophy - Avery Bradley, G, Texas
16 - Minnesota - BRushWithDeath - Gordon Hayward, SF, Butler
17 - Chicago - Trader Joe - James Anderson, SG, Oklahoma State
18 - Miami - HanSolo - Eric Bledsoe, G, Kentucky
19 - Boston - MyFavoriteMartin - Patrick Patterson, PF, Kentucky
20 - San Antonio - Cramerica
21 - Oklahoma City - PacerGod2
22 - Portland - CooperManning
23 - Minnesota - BRushWithDeath
24 - Atlanta - Flox
25 - Memphis - Mellifluous
26 - Oklahoma City - PacerGod2
27 - New Jersey - Travmil
28 - Memphis - Mellifluous
29 - Orlando - CableKC
30 - Washington - AvoidingtheclownsAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
(As I stated, I was rushed. I must have overlooked him - very sorry!!!)
Spurs Pics - Take 2 comming very shortly!!!
"Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
PICK # 20
Spurs, Take2:
Spurs Current Roster
45 DeJuan Blair C-F 6-7 265 04/22/1989 Pittsburgh R
21 Tim Duncan F 6-11 260 04/25/1976 Wake Forest 12
23 Alonzo Gee G 6-6 220 05/29/1987 Alabama R
20 Manu Ginobili G 6-6 205 07/28/1977 Bahia Blanca, Argentina 7
1 Malik Hairston G 6-6 220 02/23/1987 Oregon 1
3 George Hill G 6-2 180 05/04/1986 IUPUI 1
24 Richard Jefferson F 6-7 225 06/21/1980 Arizona 8
5 Curtis Jerrells G 6-1 195 02/05/1987 Baylor R
34 Antonio McDyess C-F 6-9 245 09/07/1974 Alabama 13
9 Tony Parker G 6-2 180 05/17/1982 Paris, France 8
2 Garrett Temple G 6-6 190 05/08/1986 Louisiana State R
Disapointed to see J.Anderson off the board, but there is still a player that the Spurs are intrigued with at a position of need. As stated previously, SF is a glaring need, as the Jefferson experiment did not work out at all, & w/ him having an expiring deal, there is a chance he could be moved. That is not to say the Spurs are rebuilding though. When you have a team w/ veteran leaders & born winners like T.Duncan, T.Parker, & Manu, you ride that train untill the wheels fall off (unless your name is J.Krause). Pop is no Krause, and is no slouch, Pop is a winner who can retool on the fly & will find the right fit for his team. Pop can recognize & develope talent, and he has found a player he likes, & though many think he does not has a set position, Pop does not care. He sees posibilities.
-Senior maturity, NBA ready
-Physical, athletic, quick, high energy
-Multi positional on O & D, 3/4 (S.Marion'ish?)
-Rebounder, strong mid-range shot, good in transition
So, with the 20th pick of the 2010 NBA Draft, the San Antonio Spurs take:
Damion James, SF/ Texas Longhorns
(6'7", 227 lb., 22 yrs old)"Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Nice pick. Really like DJ's shooting.Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Oklahoma City Thunder
Salary Structure, with thanks to www.shamsports.com:
Nick Collison $6,750,000
Nenad Krstic $5,543,116
Kevin Durant $6,053,663
James Harden $4,304,520 - $4,604,760 - $5,820,417
Russell Westbrook $4,017,720 - $5,082,416 - $6,703,706
Jeff Green $4,455,988
Thabo Sefolosha $3,000,000 - $3,300,000 - $3,600,000 - $3,900,000
Eric Maynor $1,417,800 - $1,516,880 - $2,338,721
Serge Ibaka $1,204,200 - $1,288,200 - $2,253,062
B.J. Mullens $1,204,200 - $1,288,200 - $2,253,062
D.J. White $1,108,680 - $2,001,167
Kyle Weaver $935,484 - $1,000,000
Total salaries: $39,995,371 - $20,081,623 - $16,265,262 - $3,900,000
When looking at the Depth Chart:
PG - Westbrook/Maynor
SG - Sefolosha/Harden
SF - Durant/Weaver
PF - Green/Ibaka/White
C - Collison/Krstic/Mullens
We have 12 players under contract with four selections in the 2010 NBA Draft. We will obviously be looking to make a move for a player we really like. We have been in discussions with several teams in the late lottery about moving up for a couple of our later picks. We select 21, 26, 32, and 51. We are not owed nor do we owe any draft picks to anybody beyond this year. With the salary structure of most of our team, trading away future picks is an option for us.
We as a team are clearly looking to be a title contender. We will be heavily pursuing giving Kevin Durant and Jeff Green extensions this summer. We will be set at SF, PF, PG, and SG for years to come. We have significant depth and our team is very young. We are two deep at every position except center. Krstic and Collison are solid players at center. They are both only signed through 2010-11. We will use some of their salaries to re-sign Durant and Green. We have a very favorable cap situation and will struggle to be able to sign all of our players after their rookie deals. Westbrook, Durant, and Green remain our core. Harden, Ibaka, and Sefolosha will be key components as well. We anticipate Maynor, Weaver, Mullens, and White to develop and provide depth over the duration of their contracts. We will look into re-signing them if we have the available cap space, but they may be long-term casualties to preserve our core and cap situation as we become a perennial contender.
Our biggest need is clearly at the center position. We have two offensive superstars in Durant and Westbrook. Thefolosha and Green are exceptional defenders. Harden is a great facilitator who has a strong overall game. We lack depth in the front court, even though we have six players on our roster who are PF or C. Mullens is a work in process. White is a solid player, but not much more than an end of bench player for us. Ibaka has huge upside, but is clearly more of a PF. We would love to get a center who can play well on both sides of the court, but being in the Western Conference we will need primarily defensive presence from our selection.
We have a situation where we can wait a few years for someone to develop, but we would like someone to come in and be capable of getting minutes immediately to develop. We see several players we like who are capable of giving us a defensive presence immediately, but also provide long-term potential to be good centers.
Our short list of players we are considering are:
Daniel Orton - Size, strength, knee concerns, big upside, defensive presence
Larry Sanders - Excellent athleticism, raw, improved offensively last year, shot blocker, needs to add strength
Soloman Alibi - Legitimate 7 footer, good rebounder, great shot blocker, needs work offensively, smart player
Kevin Seraphin - Big body, good rebounder, plays both sides of the court, provides bulk we are looking for
Jerome Jordan - 7 footer, long, back to the basket offensive game, raw, blocks shots, shown improvment since beginning the game so late
Of these guys that we consider as being possible centers in the NBA we need to realize the potential for other teams selecting between now and 26. We feel like there is a need for big men for some of the teams and we want to get our guy who we feel is the best fit for our roster, so...
With the 21st pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, the Oklahoma City Thunder select:
Soloman Alibi, C, Florida State
He provides the best defensive capabilities of any of the centers left. We like several of the other players, but we feel he has the upside to become a better offensive player and provide the length and shot blocking our team needs. We have the luxury of bringing him along slowly, while being able to give him minutes immediately because of his defense. We are THRILLED with this selection."Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
Portland Trailblazers:
A. Miller/J Bayless
B. Roy/R. Fernandez
N. Batum/M. Webster
L. Aldridge/M. Camby
G. Oden/J. Przybilla
With the 22nd pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, the Portland Trailblazers select:
DANIEL ORTON, KENTUCKY, C.
We didn't expect Orton to fall this far and see him as a value at 22. With Oden's knee becoming less and less trustworthy and an aging Przy having one year left on his contract, we wanted to come out of the first round with an additional big man on the roster. Ideally, Orton can grow into a player that splits minutes with Oden. If Oden has a career ending knee injury, then there's a shot Orton could develop into a starting 5.Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
I was very very close to taking Orton's upside. He measured a lot shorter than we thought at the combine and it gave us some pause with the supposed knee issues he has. Nice selection!"Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
The T-Wolves have been fortunate to land two of the draft's biggest upside players in DeMarcus Cousins and Gordon Hayward. For the 26th selection we're going back to the wing position. We want a player who is long and athletic who will be committed on the defensive end. A player who fits this description and someone we thought highly of taking here was UCONN's Stanley Robinson. However, there is another player we fell in love with this year who also meets that description to a T, while adding a high skill level. So...
With the 23rd selection in the 2010 NBA Draft the Minnesota Timberwolves select... Quincy Pondexter, SF, University of Washington
Pondexter is the type of player who can be instantly plugged into any team and be a rotation player. He's a superior athlete in both leaping ability and quickness to go along with a crazy wingspan. He turned himself into a versatile scorer, but he takes as much pride in his defense has he does in his offense. He has an incredible motor and real nose for the ball. His outside shooting is certainly shaky but with Hayward already selected and Wayne Ellington's selection a year ago that isn't a worry for us. If Pondexter can develop a consistent outside shot we truly believe he could be a star."I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
-Lance StephensonComment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
ATL:
Current Roster- no Resignings-
PG: Bibby/Teague/x
SG: Crawford/Evans/x
SF: Marvin Williams/x
PF: Josh Smith/x
C: Al Horford/Zaza.
With a lack of SF/PF, a need is in that area, obviously. We also seem to have a hole where Joe Johnson is, although if he comes back he can back up the two and the three when crawford comes in. We could also use a decent backup man if the need arises. Josh Childress is the best option also in case we need to replace someone.
In this case we are looking for the best player available as well as a person who can plug up a lot of holes for us, and maybe even get back some value from Johnson in a sign and trade deal.
When we look at our team currently, we lack a stretch wing, a role that Joe Johnson could play maybe at the three, but not at the four. With that said, we need to look at a hybrid 3/4 so that we can stretch the floor from positions 1-3 or 1-4 if Joe Johnson returns, as Bibby and hopefully teague give us shooting at the one, crawford and johnson give us range at the two, and johnson only gives us range at the three, with Williams lacking in that area. We also would like to take a player who can run.
Unfortunately for us a sniping three isn't really available currently, so we have to go based on a player who can run, defend, and play a bunch of positions since we are very thin in plenty of areas and minutes can be found in every position.
We would select Stanley Robinson. Stanley Robinson gives us a nightmare matchup on the wings, as he as very explosive and can guard four and the three, and can be a nightmare with Josh Smith in terms of guarding the painted area as well as in transition. We feel that he has the body and the ability to play very well with our team and can effectively guard and be active on the floor, with his great defense and ability to get to the rim and create even more mismatches on the floor with our already very tough to guard lineup. This season he has shown flashes of three point shooting, so if he develops that, we feel that this would be a home run pick.Comment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
At this point the Grizzlies are rushing to the phone trying to get their pick in as fast as possible. Though the front court is a position of strength with Randolph and Gasol entrenched as starters and Hasheem Thabeet showing...that he still exists, we feel like Larry Sanders is too good to pass up at this point in the draft. He's got the size and athletic ability to play with any of the 3 players mentioned above. We also feel like he's a player who's come a long way, and who will still want to improve after coming into the league.
We didn't really consider other players once we knew Sanders was available. We've got our eye on 4 talented guards for our next pick.
The pick - Larry Sanders, PF/C, VCU"A man with no belly has no appetite for life."
- Salman RushdieComment
-
Re: The 2nd (Quite Possibly) Annual "Bite Me BillS, I'm Not Going to Call it the PD Mock Draft, no matter what you say" Mock Draft Thread
PG - Westbrook/Maynor
SG - Sefolosha/Harden
SF - Durant/Weaver
PF - Green/Ibaka/White
C - Collison/Krstic/Mullens/Alibi
After snagging Soloman Alibi at 21, we were hoping that somebody from our original list fell to us at 26. We are taking best avilable players on our board and we feel there is tremendous value in the big men in this draft. We are stacked in the front court, but this is the NBA and you can never have enough big bodies. While we like several guards here, we also pick 32nd where we can still get solid value at the guard position. We have some time to let these guys develop and we are going to go with a big bodied player from France...
With the 26th pick in the 2010 NBA Draft, the Oklahoma City Thunder select Kevin Seraphin from France.
Seraphin is a very good rebounder. He is a big bodied player who is very strong. He is very athletic for his size. He shows solid instincts in shot blocking man on man and weakside. We have found him to have an improving offensive arsenal and with some more work defensively, we think he can be a solid part of our front court rotation. He fits nicely as a PF in the NBA, while being big enough to move over to center, although a bit short to be a full time center. He has a very impressive physique for a 20 year old. We are really ecstatic about this pick and we feel we got a bargain on him because he is foreign. We feel it's a luxury to be drafting big men who will be given a chance to develop and succeed in the coming years for us."Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."Comment
Comment