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

I like what we did this draft...

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

  • #16
    Re: I like what we did this draft...

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    Doug, I think my issue is that they've tried this several times recently and it keeps ending up bad.

    Didn't they swing for the fences with Bender, Harrison, Saras, Williams and White? Even KRush was a poor man's gamble.

    Harrison was a lower pick, but he fell because of attitude, something the team hoped to overcome. Saras was older, but the team sold us on his leadership impact and how it was worth outbidding several teams to get him. Bender cost you an all-star center. White cost you several 2nd round picks, ironically where they took Lance this year. Extra concern there because like White they were trying to buy farther up to get him.

    Heck, even the Harrington process was a gamble that his friendship with JO and positive image with the fans would solve tons of problems. When the deal got ugly, like a pick and having to take back Edwards just for the rights to do what no other team could do (offer Harrington the amount of our TE space, higher than the MLE), the team gambled that it would be worth it. A few months later as Carlisle benched him to start the 2nd half because of his crappy attitude it was clear that this was another hard eight dream instead of a pass line bet.

    Granger was a lucky break, but not a gamble. By the time he hit Indy he was into the "how many more dumb teams are going to pass on him" range. Hibbert and Rush are bland to fans, but they have proven to be functional players in a pretty disfunctional system.

    The team is about to clear somewhere in the park of $30m....that's "homerun" money where you don't have to gamble on the talent, just the remaining longevity. You will be in the mix to trade that pending space for a known good star. With Danny already here you won't be thinking "I sure wish they had another HR guy", you'll be thinking "I sure wish they had a reliable starting role player to handle the dirty work".

    The reason you suck it up and live the boring life now is that you are biding your time and working on the stuff you can best fix currently, and that stuff is your non-star players. Boring old Patterson, or a scoring specialist like Anderson for the bench (plus other pick, cash, whatever from trade-down) are certainly not the "final piece".

    But the fact is that you didn't need the final piece yet. The team has about 4-5 missing pieces. If George is great even 2 months into the year, you still have PG, PF, defense, and split-time C issues that will keep them from winning. That's your best case scenario without other deals.


    Bird just swung for the fences with no one on and his team down 5 in the 6th inning. Right about now we need baserunners. We've got Pujols set to bat in 4 batters, let's go for the HR then when it makes sense. If it wasn't clear, Pujols is the expiring contracts and 4 batters is about 6 months from now as the trade deadline looms.

    Too bad we won't bring him to the plate because we will have 3 strikeouts to go with the 1 solo HR, still down by 4.
    So what exactly do you want? You criticized the team last year for Hansbrough and being safe, now you are criticizing them for swinging for the fences. Well what exactly do you want?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: I like what we did this draft...

      Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
      So what exactly do you want? You criticized the team last year for Hansbrough and being safe, now you are criticizing them for swinging for the fences. Well what exactly do you want?
      He wants them to let him in their war room so they'll pick the guys he's developed a mancrush on
      "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: I like what we did this draft...

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Doug, I think my issue is that they've tried this several times recently and it keeps ending up bad.

        Didn't they swing for the fences with Bender, Harrison, Saras, Williams and White? Even KRush was a poor man's gamble.
        You might as well put JO on the list because when he got his max contract it was more based on the potential the team thought he had rather than what he was already doing. We're still trying to climb out of that salary hole. And what about overpaying Tinsley with a long term deal?

        But IMHO this draft was pretty weak as far as depth so once we made the decision to try and win every game we possibly could right to the bitter end and stick with players whose time as Pacers was probably coming to an end sooner rather than later, you might as well take a risk or two in this draft.

        Now, after some of the things we've learned about Stephenson I'm questioning the talk of the Pacers trying to move up to get him. That might've been crazy (depending on what we had to do to do that), but at where we got him it's not bothering me too much. I haven't heard a lot of talk about anyone better we could've gotten there. Not with any certainty.

        Of course no matter who we have playing we still have
        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


        • #19
          Re: I like what we did this draft...

          Originally posted by Doug View Post
          Also, I would ask the Admins to ban anybody who mentions coaching in this thread. We've beaten that particular horse to death.
          Weeeee!!!
          "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: I like what we did this draft...

            I wouldn't call Harrison a swing for the fences pick, late first round, already a playoff team, you take a chance on a big guy.

            Sarunas was highly touted, multiple teams were after him, including the Cavs, we won the free agent battle, and it didn't work out.

            Bender, Williams and White b/c of the picks traded and the guaranteed money were really the downfall.

            Bender was simply unfortunate, had potential, injuries just kept him from reaching them.

            Shawne Williams I never understood. I didn't think much of him at Memphis, I felt we were already in the Tinsley needs to go state, and with Marcus Williams, Farmar, and Rondo on the board, I would have prefer a gamble in that direction. Bad mistake made, had to cut our losses, but hey if Magnum Rolle somehow turns out to be a solid player then Shawne would have came in handy after all.

            James White, I didn't understand. Had crazy hops, and that was about it in my eyes. Must have liked his athleticism, but gave up too much for him, and never even made the roster

            This year i liked what we did b/c even the safe picks weren't much to get excited about. Who else at #10 would you have wanted to take a chance on with that pick? Of course you could perhaps trade down, but if you didn't like the offers, you take a shot, and I like the shot Bird took with Paul George. I hear the Raptors were deeply upset George didn't make it to #13.

            Lance Stephenson is a guy that could have went in the 1st round if the draft was strictly based off talent. His coach said he would likely have been a top ten pick if he had came back to school another year. They apparently did lots of research and even hired a private investigator to see who he hangs with, as well as his family. He's only 19 years old and has lots of potential as well.

            With Rush being inconsistent you have 2 capable players of being the starting SG in the future.

            Magnum Rolle looks like an upgrade over Solo at least, and could turn out to be more then that. A lot better then Ryan Reid, that's for sure.

            I think if the Pacers can get a solid PG this summer they have a chance to be the up and coming team like the Bucks and Thunder were this year.

            And I don't think the Pacers need a superstar PG, of course it would be nice, but as the Pacers have shown the last two 2nd half parts of the season, stability and a PG who simply runs the team can lead to a better Pacers teams. Jack and Watson both showed this once they got accustomed to the starting role.

            Some of us are acting like certain PGs aren't good enough for this team, and it's quite silly actually. Of course you don't want to overpay for someone who's not worth it (like Ford for example). I'd be more then happy with a guy like Felton. He's not a superstar but he's a really solid option. He can defend, pass, score and run a team. That's a type of player we could use.

            Of course we would like Collison. He's young and can apparently do it all when given the chance, but he also requires you take on a bad contract in his place. If something goes wrong or happens with Collison, we still have a contract to eat up most likely Might be worth the chance though.

            There's been a nice list of PGs that should be available that some of you that dogged, but they would be solid additions to help our team win ball games. Mark Jackson was a really solid PG, b/c he could run the team and be a floor general, he didn't have to be an all-star or superstar. Even when Tinsley was at his best, he was good b/c his handle, court vision and being a floor general, and that's all the Pacers need to add this summer to have a roster that can start turning this thing around.

            Point Guard I'd personally be fine with that are realistic:
            Raymond Felton
            Steve Blake
            Kirk Hinrich
            Jordan Farmar
            Luke Ridnour
            Andre Miller
            Jarrett Jack
            Jose Calderon
            Eric Maynor
            Mike Conley

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: I like what we did this draft...

              Originally posted by tadscout View Post
              -Bird on George
              LINK

              Well, that clears up why FSU didn't have a better record. The way some here were trying to spin the reason it was Gerge's fault for being on a losing team for 2 years. Maybe some of those spin doctors will read this story and ease back on their comments. It's hard to have a winning team when you have no talent on the team after the school has been sanctioned. I'm sure no one in Indiana would know about a school's BB program being sanctioned and the team losing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: I like what we did this draft...

                After the interview that Bledsoe gave and looking at the other available PGs not named Wall, I figured the Pacers thought the risk of trading back with a team like OKC just wasn't worth it... Who knows if Bledsoe would still have been there at #18.... And I doubt George was a guy that OKC was interested in after the Pacers took him as they've got a good crop of SGs (Harden, Sefalosha) and they're looking for FC help.

                So I figured the Pacers went after the BPA and figured we'll get some good pieces as potential trade bait and figure it out later.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: I like what we did this draft...

                  Some of us are acting like certain PGs aren't good enough for this team, and it's quite silly actually. Of course you don't want to overpay for someone who's not worth it (like Ford for example). I'd be more then happy with a guy like Felton. He's not a superstar but he's a really solid option. He can defend, pass, score and run a team. That's a type of player we could use.
                  I 100% agree with you people on here are talking like if we dont get chris paul or deron williams we are gonna suck someone like george hill, collison or raymond felton would be fine with me and really would improve the team without breaking up our young core of players

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: I like what we did this draft...

                    Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                    I wouldn't call Harrison a swing for the fences pick, late first round, already a playoff team, you take a chance on a big guy.

                    Sarunas was highly touted, multiple teams were after him, including the Cavs, we won the free agent battle, and it didn't work out.

                    Bender, Williams and White b/c of the picks traded and the guaranteed money were really the downfall.

                    Bender was simply unfortunate, had potential, injuries just kept him from reaching them.

                    Shawne Williams I never understood. I didn't think much of him at Memphis, I felt we were already in the Tinsley needs to go state, and with Marcus Williams, Farmar, and Rondo on the board, I would have prefer a gamble in that direction. Bad mistake made, had to cut our losses, but hey if Magnum Rolle somehow turns out to be a solid player then Shawne would have came in handy after all.

                    James White, I didn't understand. Had crazy hops, and that was about it in my eyes. Must have liked his athleticism, but gave up too much for him, and never even made the roster

                    This year i liked what we did b/c even the safe picks weren't much to get excited about. Who else at #10 would you have wanted to take a chance on with that pick? Of course you could perhaps trade down, but if you didn't like the offers, you take a shot, and I like the shot Bird took with Paul George. I hear the Raptors were deeply upset George didn't make it to #13.

                    Lance Stephenson is a guy that could have went in the 1st round if the draft was strictly based off talent. His coach said he would likely have been a top ten pick if he had came back to school another year. They apparently did lots of research and even hired a private investigator to see who he hangs with, as well as his family. He's only 19 years old and has lots of potential as well.

                    With Rush being inconsistent you have 2 capable players of being the starting SG in the future.

                    Magnum Rolle looks like an upgrade over Solo at least, and could turn out to be more then that. A lot better then Ryan Reid, that's for sure.

                    I think if the Pacers can get a solid PG this summer they have a chance to be the up and coming team like the Bucks and Thunder were this year.

                    And I don't think the Pacers need a superstar PG, of course it would be nice, but as the Pacers have shown the last two 2nd half parts of the season, stability and a PG who simply runs the team can lead to a better Pacers teams. Jack and Watson both showed this once they got accustomed to the starting role.

                    Some of us are acting like certain PGs aren't good enough for this team, and it's quite silly actually. Of course you don't want to overpay for someone who's not worth it (like Ford for example). I'd be more then happy with a guy like Felton. He's not a superstar but he's a really solid option. He can defend, pass, score and run a team. That's a type of player we could use.

                    Of course we would like Collison. He's young and can apparently do it all when given the chance, but he also requires you take on a bad contract in his place. If something goes wrong or happens with Collison, we still have a contract to eat up most likely Might be worth the chance though.

                    There's been a nice list of PGs that should be available that some of you that dogged, but they would be solid additions to help our team win ball games. Mark Jackson was a really solid PG, b/c he could run the team and be a floor general, he didn't have to be an all-star or superstar. Even when Tinsley was at his best, he was good b/c his handle, court vision and being a floor general, and that's all the Pacers need to add this summer to have a roster that can start turning this thing around.

                    Point Guard I'd personally be fine with that are realistic:
                    Raymond Felton
                    Steve Blake
                    Kirk Hinrich
                    Jordan Farmar
                    Luke Ridnour
                    Andre Miller
                    Jarrett Jack
                    Jose Calderon
                    Eric Maynor
                    Mike Conley

                    I totally agree with your perception on the past draft do u think that Shaun Livingston could be added as one our realistic PG he's still young and had some pretty good game for the Wiz last year

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: I like what we did this draft...

                      I'm just glad we didn't draft Patterson. He might turn out to be good, but he is another undersized PF. Hopefully we already have that in Hansbrough.
                      What would we be saying if Utah would have passed on Hayward and we drafted him. Would that have been a safe pick? Yep.
                      Last edited by pacers74; 06-27-2010, 11:09 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: I like what we did this draft...

                        Originally posted by pacers74 View Post
                        What would we be saying if Utah would have passed on Heyward and we drafted him. Would that have been a safe pick? Yep.
                        From the Salt Lake Tribune:

                        Many of the 3,500 fans who attended the Jazz’s draft party at EnergySolutions Arena lustily booed the choice, knowing that several post players — including Cole Aldrich of Kansas, Ed Davis of North Carolina, Paul George of Fresno State and Patrick Patterson of Kentucky — remained available when the Jazz picked, after the top seven selections went about as expected.

                        The reaction was so aggressive — some fans walked out before an interview with Hayward was broadcast on the video screen — that vice president of basketball operations Kevin O’Connor felt compelled to take the microphone to defend the choice.

                        “The only thing I hope is that in two years you’re not booing,” he said.

                        Coach Jerry Sloan said the boos comprised a “natural reaction” for fans who “aren’t familiar with what we’re trying to accomplish. We’re trying to get the best player, and sometimes that’s not who everybody wanted.”
                        "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: I like what we did this draft...

                          I don't think that Hayward was the best player available, at best he is going to be a 6th man and at 9th you expect more than that.

                          I still don't understand Utah, if they want a guy that is going to be the next Kyle Korver why not just resign the real one? they are a playoffs team why not take a young player who could possibly be a future star?
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: I like what we did this draft...

                            Originally posted by Balaclava67 View Post
                            I totally agree with your perception on the past draft do u think that Shaun Livingston could be added as one our realistic PG he's still young and had some pretty good game for the Wiz last year
                            I think Shaun Livingston is a guy that's very intriguing. He really had a horrible freak injury and it's simply remarkable that he's been able to make it back. With that being said, he's only 24 years old and will be 25 when the season starts. That's like a 1st/2nd year player that stayed 4 years of college. And judging by the end of the year with the Wizards he seems to be rounding back into form, while also gaining confidence in his knee/leg more and more.

                            I think Livingston would be a nice player to try and acquire as a backup for cheap. I don't think he's a player you gamble on to be the answer at PG, but I think as a backup he could be a really nice low risk high reward type of player.

                            He's really long at 6'7 and has a really nice shot selection for a PG. I'm not sure about his defense, but he distributes the ball well, and doesn't take 3's (which could hurt him under O'Brien), I know for the month of April with the Wiz he averaged 15 pts and 6 assists, including a 10 pt 7 assist 1 point victory over the Pacers to end the year. That stretch had to bode well for his confidence that he could still succeed in the NBA.

                            I think he would be a nice kid to gamble as a backup PG, I think him coming back from his injury says a lot about his hard work and determination. If we could get a solid veteran to bring in and start and have Livingston as a cheap backup and insurance for Price, I think it would be an excellent and inexpensive risk for the Pacers, and one worth taking.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: I like what we did this draft...

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              This draft was a crapshoot to me, so I'm cool wih them swinging for the fences this time. I think it was wise to draft how they did when they did the last two years, but it would probably be a mistake to keep it up year after year now that they've laid some foundation with safe character guys.

                              The bigger issue is what happens with these expiring contracts. I'm worried about it, but I have no choice but to wait and see.
                              I think that your viewpoint is exactly where the TPTB and most of us on the forum stand.

                              This summer, the coming season and next summer are significantly impacted by the expiring contracts and what the Pacer management is able to do with them. I would personally probably go further and say that this period of time is "all about" the contracts and using them wisely.

                              Going for the home run this year, IMO, was not only acceptable, it was absolutely the wise thing to do.

                              We are definitely at the crossroads. With these expiring contracts, the Pacers are at a unique point in their history. We have never had opportunities for acquiring higher level players like we will have in the next 15 months.

                              If we want to be "back in the hunt", we must gain 3-4 upper shelf players from the pool of players we gain through our recent draft choices, the draft choices next year and the players that we will acquire using the expiring contracts.

                              If we don't, then I think we may as well resign ourselves to additonal mediocrity for another 3-4 years. If we totally bust with all of the opportunities we have, then I think things will get much, much worse than what we experienced this past season.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: I like what we did this draft...

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I don't think that Hayward was the best player available, at best he is going to be a 6th man and at 9th you expect more than that.

                                I still don't understand Utah, if they want a guy that is going to be the next Kyle Korver why not just resign the real one? they are a playoffs team why not take a young player who could possibly be a future star?
                                Call me crazy, but I see Hayward more as an Adam Morrison pre leg injury than a Korver. Morrison was always a scorer, not a shooter. I think Hayward fits that bill much more.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X