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

ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

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

  • #16
    Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    I'd rather see us win, I'm tired of rooting for us to lose by midseason for draft picks.
    I go by the Herm Edwards way of thinking. "You play to win the game.....Hello...You play to win the game" So as much as it might be smart to want to lose for a "better" draft pick, and there's no certainty there, I want the W!!
    Doing the twitter thing JonnyB83
    Also JonnyB83 on facebook....we should be friends!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      #17? If the top 16 teams are playoff teams, then we're right where we've been... best of the worst.
      #17 isn't bad when you have over 35 million in cap space to help you climb that ladder

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

        Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
        #17 isn't bad when you have over 35 million in cap space to help you climb that ladder
        My thoughts exactly. I am also... excited at the prospect of another high draft pick... But I'm always wanting the W's. Makin the playoffs. I'll take the 8 seed man!!

        Ok thats out. For real though, I couldn' be more excited by this upcoming season, regardless of what does or does not go down from here.

        Win or lose this year, We WIN! lets let that feel good for the start of this fresh *** new season.
        Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

        Passion. Pride. Pacers.

        It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
        #31 & Only

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Originally posted by Count55
          If you look at the ratings, the only reason the Pacers even make middle of the pack is because they've got lots of money coming of the books, and they're expected to suck - resulting in good draft picks.
          we can only hope

          Are you starting this bull*hit already? Christ, we haven't even inflated the balls for the season, let alone thrown one up and this nonsense has already been posted...

          I can see what this season is going to be about already...
          ...Still "flying casual"
          @roaminggnome74

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

            Its really hard to project the future but I do think that this draft has given us the shot in the arm that has been missing for 3-4 seasons.

            But why we are ranked ahead of teams like the Hawks, Griz, Suns, Bucks and even Wolves is kind of amazing. We have only one All Star and its hard to project 2nd round picks as future all stars or even Paul George for that matter.

            Hibbert has upside but his flaws are as obvious today as they were when he slid to the 17th pick as a college senior. Tyle and McBob are up and coming players to be sure but the backcourt remains a black hole deft of any real talent besides Lance and George at the 2.

            I like our upside as well but I can make a betetr case for a team with Johnson, Horford and Smith. Or one with Mayo, Gay, Gasol, Randolph and Conley and a slew of talented young guys. And Phoenix' no name bench was awesome last year giving LA all it wanted in WCF. Its not just Nash and Grant Hill anymore and they have JRich about to expire as well.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

              6 through 10...

              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...kings-2-100805

              6. Portland Trail Blazers | Future Power Rating: 593
              PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
              278 (6th) 142 (10th) 81 (22nd) 58 (12th) 34 (21st)

              Portland's management dropped from No. 4 to No. 10 in this survey based almost entirely on its ham-handed handling of general manager Kevin Pritchard's dismissal. We may never know the real story that led to his ouster, but we do know that one of the league's best talent evaluators was bizarrely shown the door on the day of the draft, and the team allowed itself to limp through a crucial free-agency period with nobody at the tiller. The Blazers righted themselves with the hiring of Rich Cho, but the shadowy "Vulcans" working under Paul Allen in Seattle remain a concern.

              The other concern for the Blazers is that three key starters, Brandon Roy, Greg Oden and Nicolas Batum, all had serious injuries last season. That trio plus LaMarcus Aldridge is the core of what should be a perennial Western Conference contender. But there are enough question marks in Portland that despite the Blazers' highly rated personnel department, several clubs now outrank them.

              (Previous rank: 5)

              7. Orlando Magic | Future Power Rating: 591
              PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
              316 (4th) 129 (12th) 53 (28th) 75 (4th) 18 (26th)

              We liked Orlando's roster the best in March, but now the Magic don't even have best roster in Florida. Plus, we're focused down the line, past this coming season, and that hurts the outlook for four of the five Magic starters. Nonetheless, this team looks stacked for the long term with Dwight Howard at center and a constellation of minor stars surrounding him. Additionally, keep an eye on young forward Ryan Anderson, who could become a better version of Troy Murphy.

              Orlando's market looms as another big factor in its favor. With a new arena, a balmy climate and a dominant big man, it's already near the top of Chris Paul's short list of future destinations and could pop up on other players', too.

              The only major concern is the serious money the team is taking on. Orlando is a small market, but the team is well into the luxury tax and probably will remain that way for a while unless ownership demands a budget slashing. For now, it hasn't, and with that, solid personnel moves under GM Otis Smith and the exacting coaching of Stan Van Gundy, the Magic get good marks for management.

              (Previous rank: 3)

              8. Utah Jazz | Future Power Rating: 578
              PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
              262 (7th) 161 (4th) 84 (21st) 44 (18th) 17 (27th)

              The Jazz remain under the radar but consistently impressive. In fact, in our rankings, they managed to move up in four of the five categories. However, Utah, no longer armed with the Knicks' first-round pick, slid 17 spots in our draft ranking and, as a result, fell from No. 6 to No. 8 overall.

              Despite multiple setbacks this summer, Utah's future continues to look bright. In particular, Deron Williams shines at point guard and Paul Millsap is a young, tenacious power forward. In the short run, losing Carlos Boozer and Wesley Matthews will hurt, but Al Jefferson should fill Boozer's shoes as an interior scorer and rookie Gordon Hayward brings a lot to the table as well.

              The Jazz also have a very interesting trading chip in Andrei Kirilenko. Although he has an expiring contract, he's also a valuable player whom a contender might target. If the Jazz are willing to take back a longer deal, they could add even more firepower by the trade deadline.

              (Previous rank: 6)

              9. Denver Nuggets | Future Power Rating: 567
              PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
              254 (8th) 142 (9th) 85 (19th) 53 (13th) 33 (23rd)

              Denver has a lot to be worried about. Carmelo Anthony can be a free agent after the season, and Nene and J.R. Smith also can depart. Chauncey Billups isn't getting any younger, the front office is in flux with execs Mark Warkentien and Rex Chapman heading out the door, and although it's a very pleasant city, it's not exactly a free-agent magnet.

              That said, the Nuggets have a lot of positives. The most important is that their cash crunch will ease when Kenyon Martin's $17 million deal comes off the books after the season, finally allowing the Nuggets to go on the market without one hand tied behind their back. Additionally, they already have a superstar in place -- a major advantage compared to the competition. As long as Melo and Nene stay on the roster, the Nuggets should keep a high ranking for the foreseeable future.

              (Previous rank: 7)

              10. San Antonio Spurs | Future Power Rating: 555
              PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
              194 (17th) 183 (1st) 80 (23rd) 64 (7th) 34 (22nd)

              The Spurs have been the league's model franchise of the past decade. Although they've shown signs of slippage on the court, we continue to have faith that the top front office in the league will help them remain a winning team for the foreseeable future.

              Injuries and age have taken their toll in San Antonio, particularly with Tim Duncan (age 34) and Manu Ginobili (33), but the Spurs also have some young legs: Tony Parker (28) remains in his prime, and George Hill (24) and DeJuan Blair (21) appear to have bright futures. If Tiago Splitter, their long-awaited import, can fulfill expectations, the Spurs could be a lot more formidable going forward than most realize.

              Given the brainpower and spending power of the Spurs' stellar management, we think they'll continue to find ways to stay in contention.

              (Previous rank: 12)

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

                1 through 5....

                http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/news/...kings-1-100805

                1. Miami Heat | Future Power Rating: 707
                PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
                387 (1st) 174 (3rd) 46 (29th) 99 (1st) 1 (30th)

                Despite a middling 2009-10 regular season, Miami ranked No. 4 in the previous edition of the Future Power Rankings. Now you know why.

                For those of you who spent July spelunking in Borneo, the Heat pulled off one of the great coups in NBA history, inking LeBron James and Chris Bosh to join forces with Dwyane Wade and then surrounding them with a decent crop of role players.

                Miami's management also jumps nine spots to the No. 3 position, as Pat Riley showed he can still make the decisive big-picture moves to steer a franchise the right way. (On smaller moves, the track record remains mixed -- witness Joel Anthony's five-year, $18 million deal.)

                Money now looms as an issue for the Heat, who were No. 2 in the category last time, and they will have to rely on the midlevel exception to build out a somewhat limited roster in future seasons. Additionally, ownership has been reluctant to pay the luxury tax in the past, although that may change with the arrival of the Miami Thrice cash cow.

                Despite those concerns, the Heat are an easy choice for the No. 1 spot. They have the best market -- a tax-free, warm-weather city with a vibrant night life and three superstars. They have the best players, with James, Wade and Bosh. And for the three seasons that run from 2011 to 2014, they have the best outlook.

                (Previous rank: 4)

                2. Los Angeles Lakers | Future Power Rating: 697
                PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
                346 (2nd) 176 (2nd) 70 (25th) 96 (2nd) 9 (28th)

                The Lakers were No. 2 the last time we did this and remain there this time around. But in two important respects, L.A.'s outlook has changed.

                First, their market is no longer rated as the most desirable -- Miami surpassed the Lakers with their additions this summer, although Los Angeles remains a close second because of its great weather, rabid fan base and superior cachet.

                The Lakers also moved up three spots to No. 2 in our management ranking. GM Mitch Kupchak has made a series of shrewd moves -- the de facto swap of Trevor Ariza for Ron Artest last offseason and the trade for Shannon Brown the year before -- that have kept L.A. a step ahead of the league. And he's done it all from the shadows while managing several outsized egos. Owner Jerry Buss, meanwhile, has figured out how to spend for quality while paring down excess costs, preventing the salary bloat that has hamstrung other large-market teams through the years (cough, New York, cough).

                On the court, the Lakers also have to worry about the knees of Kobe Bryant and Andrew Bynum, and whether Phil Jackson will be game for yet another go-round after the upcoming season. Nonetheless, a Kobe-Pau Gasol-Bynum combo looks more formidable than any other roster in the West.

                (Previous rank: 2)

                3. Oklahoma City Thunder | Future Power Rating: 679
                PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
                316 (3rd) 159 (5th) 135 (6th) 35 (24th) 34 (20th)

                The Thunder have fallen from their perch atop the Future Power Rankings to third, even though they've done little wrong. But they didn't have the offseason Miami did, obviously, and the Lakers slid past them too as a result of their continued success putting the right pieces around their core.

                Can the Thunder do the same? Kevin Durant is an MVP candidate, and having him under contract for five more seasons should make Oklahoma City a much more desirable destination for other players -- at least for those not angling for good weather or a bustling night life.

                While the Thunder have plenty of good young players around Durant, it remains to be seen whether any will join him on the journey to stardom. To match up against the likes of L.A. or Miami, they'll need somebody like Russell Westbrook, James Harden or Serge Ibaka to become an elite-level player.

                (Previous rank: 1)

                4. Chicago Bulls | Future Power Rating: 606
                PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
                288 (5th) 102 (14th) 101 (14th) 68 (6th) 47 (16th)

                The Bulls didn't get LeBron, Wade or Bosh, but they still made a major move up our rankings.

                Some of their rise comes from our belief that young players Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah will continue to blossom in Chicago. But a lot of it has to do with three pieces they added this summer: Carlos Boozer, Kyle Korver and Ronnie Brewer.

                Boozer especially looks to be a terrific fit for Chicago. The Bulls have desperately needed a low-post scorer since trading away Elton Brand nine years ago, and Boozer should command a double-team in the paint. Korver is also a godsend, as he joins a team with almost no other outside shooting.

                Chicago gets a slight bump in its management rating, too, for hiring new coach Tom Thibodeau. While it's too early to project what sort of success he'll have as a head coach, Thibodeau, a former Boston assistant, was a critical part of the Celtics' success the past few years and is widely regarded as the best defensive coach in the league. Vinny Del Negro was a better coach than he got credit for, but Thibodeau brings a lot to the table that Del Negro just didn't have.

                On the downside, the Bulls had to give up Tyrus Thomas, Kirk Hinrich and the No. 17 pick in the draft to get all of that cap space this summer. Thomas, a recent lottery pick, showed enormous potential but was inconsistent and never won the confidence of his coaches. Hinrich, on the other hand, was a veteran anchor who will be missed.

                (Previous rank: 9)

                5. Houston Rockets | Future Power Rating: 605
                PLAYERS MANAGEMENT MONEY MARKET DRAFT
                214 (10th) 157 (6th) 96 (16th) 60 (11th) 78 (6th)

                Houston has a lot of assets thanks to a trade-deadline fleecing of the Knicks that could give the team high draft picks in both 2011 and 2012. But the Rockets rank in the top five in our rankings because the cast already on hand looks strong.

                Yao Ming's health is obviously a concern, but Aaron Brooks, Kevin Martin, Kyle Lowry, Trevor Ariza, Shane Battier, Chase Budinger, Luis Scola, Jordan Hill and Patrick Patterson give Houston a nice foundation. If Yao comes back reasonably healthy (the odds of which we disagreed about), the Rockets could be very good, indeed.

                Additionally, the Rockets rate fairly well in the money category despite being well into the luxury tax. Most of the contracts on the books are short, and ownership has shown a willingness to spend money, both with contracts and paying for draft picks. Houston has shown strong management, as well, mixing GM Daryl Morey's analytics focus with solid scouting, as evidenced by a string of successful drafts.

                (Previous rank: 10)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: ESPN's Future Power Rankings: Pacers at #17

                  Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                  #17 isn't bad when you have over 35 million in cap space to help you climb that ladder
                  Not to rain on your parade, but that money is taken into account in the ranking. From a player perspective, it has us around 25th, but this ranking basically says that they think we can get from being a bottom-of-the-barrel team to a borderline playoff team by using that cap space and the expected high draft picks.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X