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

Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

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

  • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

    Originally posted by bphil View Post
    Yes he was, and he also has a super-hot wife. But he only played 28 games here before we had to unload him, so I'm not sure he counts...
    Oh come on, we didn't unload Peja. He got offered a *ridiculous* contract by NO, and it's probably one of the smarter decisions the management here in Indy made: not to match. He's one of the primary reasons NO is in cap hell now. Peja has been a massive bust in NO.

    Comment


    • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

      Originally posted by docpaul View Post
      Oh come on, we didn't unload Peja. He got offered a *ridiculous* contract by NO, and it's probably one of the smarter decisions the management here in Indy made: not to match. He's one of the primary reasons NO is in cap hell now. Peja has been a massive bust in NO.
      We did a sign and trade with NO because we didn't want to give him a new contract... how is that not unloading him?

      Comment


      • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

        Originally posted by docpaul View Post
        Oh come on, we didn't unload Peja. He got offered a *ridiculous* contract by NO, and it's probably one of the smarter decisions the management here in Indy made: not to match. He's one of the primary reasons NO is in cap hell now. Peja has been a massive bust in NO.
        The Pacers got a massive TE (I believe the biggest in history at the time) because they did a S&T.

        When you get something in return for letting a player go, that's unloading them. They didn't let him walk and get nothing in return.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          ...But, how much are you willing to risk to prove your theory? A 10th pick, future draft pick(s), Brandon Rush, valuable expirings? All of the above? Just to take the gamble that Indianapolis is a destination he WANTS to play ball?

          I'm willing to play ball and say that Parker could possibly extend his contract here, but is that "possibility" worth the risk?

          I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!
          Oh, I agree with you (mostly) I wouldn't want Parker here unless we were pulling a Celtics-style overnight turnaround. If it's just Parker we're talking about, then no, I say develop more talent and sign your key ingredients (which may or may not include Parker) next summer.
          “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

          “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

          Comment


          • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

            Which to me is the question, if you're getting Parker+Granger, you better be able to go out and get a third key ingredient this offseason, otherwise it's still a band aid on a gaping wound, that maybe gets us the 6 seed in the East, maybe.

            Do we have the assets to make another solid deal, that could possibly propel us further up? Or are we stuck waiting til the trade deadline?


            Comment


            • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              Which to me is the question, if you're getting Parker+Granger, you better be able to go out and get a third key ingredient this offseason, otherwise it's still a band aid on a gaping wound, that maybe gets us the 6 seed in the East, maybe.

              Do we have the assets to make another solid deal, that could possibly propel us further up? Or are we stuck waiting til the trade deadline?
              What other player do you get? You potentially have your center in Hibbert.

              Upgrade at shooting guard? It would be very hard to find a good power forward, teams just don't trade em away for expiring contracts.
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                My simple point is this, I don't know if we have the assets to acquire that third player and I don't if a player like that is even available.

                Everyone is spending the time saying Parker won't want to live in Indy. That's ignoring the real issue IMO, which is this, does Tony Parker, a guy used to winning a lot, want to be the starting PG on a 42-44 win team for the next two to three years of his prime if Bird can't produce a third all-star type guy to pair with him and Granger? And the answer to that is a resounding NO. And that uncertainty, to me, is the number 1 reason Parker wouldn't re-sign here.


                Comment


                • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  The Pacers got a massive TE (I believe the biggest in history at the time) because they did a S&T.

                  When you get something in return for letting a player go, that's unloading them. They didn't let him walk and get nothing in return.
                  Bah, that's certainly not how it was reported or relayed in the news. The Hornets offered Peja a 5 year, 62 million contract, which was reported that we would not match. The Pacers then went back and offered NO 200k to convert the straight up drop in our salary cap into an additional massive TE.

                  Maybe we're simply arguing semantics here, but to me unload means that we sought to get rid of him. For 5-6 million a year, he'd be a decent contributor on this team, in this particular system.
                  Last edited by docpaul; 06-15-2010, 04:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                    ...But, how much are you willing to risk to prove your theory? A 10th pick, future draft pick(s), Brandon Rush, valuable expirings? All of the above? Just to take the gamble that Indianapolis is a destination he WANTS to play ball?

                    I'm willing to play ball and say that Parker could possibly extend his contract here, but is that "possibility" worth the risk?

                    I don't!!!!!!!!!!!!
                    It's simple enough to have the trade talks contingent on Parker signing an extension at the time of the trade. If he won't, or he won't sign for the money you want to pay, then you walk away.

                    Keep in mind that the new CBA could provide him an incentive to sign an extension this summer. A three-year extension at about $13-14 per will very likely be much more than he'll be able to get under the new CBA.

                    Like I said, if the team doesn't want a one-year rental, then they can put themselves in a position to either ensure that they don't, or walk away. However, there's absolutely no sense in saying, "Oh, gee, Eva will never let him sign here, so let's not even pursue it."

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    Oh, I agree with you (mostly) I wouldn't want Parker here unless we were pulling a Celtics-style overnight turnaround. If it's just Parker we're talking about, then no, I say develop more talent and sign your key ingredients (which may or may not include Parker) next summer.
                    Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                    Which to me is the question, if you're getting Parker+Granger, you better be able to go out and get a third key ingredient this offseason, otherwise it's still a band aid on a gaping wound, that maybe gets us the 6 seed in the East, maybe.

                    Do we have the assets to make another solid deal, that could possibly propel us further up? Or are we stuck waiting til the trade deadline?
                    If we make the rumored move for Parker, then extend him, I would look at the window for this team basically being the balance of Danny's contract, or about four years. (Which is really the window, regardless.) They will definitely need to add pieces, but not necessarily this summer.

                    They will still have the expiring contracts of Dunleavy, Ford, and Foster to deal, and, after the draft is over, they could also trade next year's pick, as well.

                    Even extending Parker would leave their 2011 payroll at somewhere between $36-40 million. They would have plenty of other avenues to make other moves throughout this year and into next.

                    The trade for Parker would not be the finishing move, but the opener. There's risk, and I'm not sure if this is 100% the right way to do it, but...

                    There's going to be risk in everything, and at some point in time, we're probably going to have to make a move that looks something like this. Otherwise, we'll just be sitting here while Danny gets older, and Roy gets more expensive, and we have to start looking at turning over those guys.
                    Last edited by count55; 06-15-2010, 04:55 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                      Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                      You people are crazy. What makes you think she'll need to move to Indianapolis? Danny doesn't even live here permanently. She can stay put, heck, just because you play for a team doesn't mean you have to live in their city/state full time.
                      Didn't she spend most of her time in LA?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        Really? When did Lawson become this great player all the sudden? I totally agree with Seth, and I'm more intrigued by guys like Johnson and Torrance in a trade down scenario than Lawson. Lawson for the 10 seems like overpaying, especially for a guy who looks more like a good backup than a legit starter.

                        Now Collison on the other hand would be great, but he will probably cost more than the #10.
                        I wouldn't mind 2 years of James Posey for Darren Collison. He's won a championship, and might be a nice veteran presence for a young team. Plus, your PG position is solved.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                          Originally posted by bphil View Post
                          Yes he was, and he also has a super-hot wife. But he only played 28 games here before we had to unload him, so I'm not sure he counts...


                          I don't remember us having to "unload Peja"..

                          I thought he became a free agent at the end of that season, and he basically walked.. to sign with New Orleans..








                          .
                          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                            Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                            Hey, he's French. The first words all French babies learn is "We surrender!".

                            LMAO..!!!


                            sorry to anyone who is French , but that was funny right there...






                            .
                            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                              Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                              Bah, that's certainly not how it was reported or relayed in the news. The Hornets offered Peja a 5 year, 62 million contract, which was reported that we would not match. The Pacers then went back and offered NO 200k to convert the straight up drop in our salary cap into an additional massive TE.

                              Maybe we're simply arguing semantics here, but to me unload means that we sought to get rid of him. For 5-6 million a year, he'd be a decent contributor on this team, in this particular system.
                              How about a compromise description? Dumped or not, the Pacers made the best that they could out of the situation?

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wells is talking Ty Lawson today in the blog...

                                The Nuggets' fans' perspective, from Roundball Mining Company blog:
                                http://www.roundballminingcompany.co...ets/#more-1547

                                The Denver Nuggets do not have a draft pick in the 2010 NBA Draft and rumors of activity have been few and far between. That may be about to change as according to a report from Chad Ford on TrueHoop that might change. Apparently the Nuggets have been seeking a top ten pick in the upcoming draft with the hopes of acquiring another big man.
                                The kicker is they are using Ty Lawson as the bait.

                                My initial reaction is that they are a year too late. Heading into the 2009-10 season Denver was one big man short of being a full bore title team. Instead of making that one extra move that could have put them over the top the Nuggets were content to once again pare their payroll as low as possible. In the draft they passed up a chance to draft DeJuan Blair in order to sell their pick to the Houston Rockets (although to be fair they received a record $2.5 million) and in free agency they only used one barrel and that was the resigning of Chris Andersen.
                                Denver certainly does need another big man, however Ty Lawson is not the player I would be using in the transaction. Not only did Lawson turn the backup point guard position into a strength, but Chauncey Billups has seen his performance dramatically fall off towards the end of the last two seasons. With another year’s worth of miles on Chauncey’s tires Lawson will be even more important next season, as well as in the future when Chauncey is no longer around.
                                I previously wrote about how important it is for teams to be honest about where they are in their progression. When a team misinterprets its relative position to the other teams in the NBA, they make moves that are counterproductive and typically those transactions made in desperation end up making things worse. The perfect example is the New York Knicks where they continued to trade expiring contacts for big name players because they refused to acknowledge the need to start over.
                                A trade of a sure thing in Ty Lawson for an unknown quantity you would receive in a rookie big man smacks of a desperation move to try to force open a closing window.
                                It could be a sign that the cloud of Carmelo Anthony’s impending fee agency is beginning to hang over the team. He has proclaimed that he would be interested in signing an extension as long as the team improves the roster. When management begins making moves based on veiled threats from players they rarely make sound decisions. The Nuggets need to realize that while Carmelo is their current number one commodity, there is no proof that they need him to be a contender, or that his presence in Denver makes them a contender. As much as Melo has meant to Denver, I think they need to be open minded about his future. That is the only way they can continue to make decisions based on what is best for the team than what Carmelo wants.
                                That being said assuming the rumor is grounded in fact, what fun would this post be if we did not make that assumption, two questions come to mind. First, is Denver targeting a specific player and second, what teams fill the bill of potential trading partners?
                                If the Nuggets are targeting a big man they think will be available in the top ten, and not top five, it has to be Cole Aldrich (Insider required). Aldrich is a defensive presence who can step out and hit an open jumper. He gets credit for being solid on the pick and roll defensively, which is key for the Nuggets. He is a little undersized measuring 6’9” in socks in the combine, but makes up for it with a massive 7’4” wingspan. Trading Lawson would be a win now move and he is the only center that falls in the top ten who would fit the profile of a player ready to come in and contribute immediately. Aldrich would basically be a better rebounding, defending and scoring Chris Andersen without the athleticism.
                                If Aldrich is indeed the target, we can solidify what picks the Nuggets might be seeking.
                                While Lawson was very good last season, it is unlikely a team would sacrifice a high pick for him. There is no way Denver gets a top six pick for him and I doubt Detroit goes for Lawson at number seven although they certainly could use his talents. The Clippers would not be interested in landing a back up to Baron Davis with the eighth pick and I doubt Denver is interested in giving Lawson to Utah and the Jazz are just as likely to reject him with Deron Williams in the fold.
                                Now we come to Indiana and the tenth pick. This is the first decent match for the Nuggets as the Pacers have been seeking stability at the point for years. Indiana is in the market for a big man of their own though so it would be a difficult decision for Larry Bird and the rest of the Pacers’ front office.
                                It appears the lowest Aldrich will fall is New Orleans and they are obviously not in the market for a point guard as rumor has it they will probably be shopping Darren Collison this offseason after his stellar performance when Chris Paul was injured.
                                The only other option for Denver in my mind is if Aldrich falls all the way to the Raptors at 13. There has been a great deal of chatter recently about how Jerry Colangelo is seeking to mix things up north of the border. They are talking about anyone and everyone. I could see them interested in Lawson to play the high octane offense Colangelo prefers. Plus Toronto is one of the few teams who have shown interest in Linas Kleiza in the past and he could be used as a sweetener to entice the Raptors to part with their pick.
                                While I find this rumor to be distasteful it is important to note that should Denver actually find a partner and pull the trigger on a Lawson for a draft pick deal there will be other moves to help round out the roster. The front office should not be judged on any one trade, but the body of work as a whole and should this rumor come to fruition I will be interested to see how they follow it up as the hole in the roster will simply move from the frontcourt to the backcourt.
                                Nuggets fans think pretty highly of Lawson (I know most fans overvalue their own), but still good to get their perspective. They seem to think (generally) that he will be a worthy starter once Chauncey is gone. If Larry really wanted him both of the last 2 seasons, I think a deal is likely.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X