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

Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

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

  • #16
    Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
    Why would that matter? Tinsley was never even charged with anything I don't believe, and they punished him.
    And didn't they have a hard time with the CBA because of it?

    Plus, in this case..either what he did was illegal or he didn't do it. So you probably should wait and see if he's convicted before punishing.

    I'm not quite sure I agree with it, because I still say there could be some issues in the locker room with this. It may cause chemistry issues between some of the guys, if Lance has anger issues that extends farther than against women (assuming of course its true) that could inevitably be a problem..ect..but in terms of covering their butts, I can see why the Pacers might let him back in Conseco.
    Last edited by Sookie; 09-14-2010, 04:44 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

      Originally posted by Sookie View Post
      And didn't they have a hard time with the CBA because of it?
      I guess if you call no punishments and a scheduled arbitration hearing that never even took place .... a hard time.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

        Here are the rest of the grades as handed out by Ford:
        http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=SummerGrades-East-100914
        1. Miami Heat

        Key additions: LeBron James (trade), Dwyane Wade (re-signed), Chris Bosh (trade), Udonis Haslem (re-signed), Mike Miller (FA), Zydrunas Ilgauskas (FA), James Jones (re-signed), Juwan Howard (FA)
        Key subtractions: Michael Beasley, Daequan Cook, Jermaine O'Neal, Quentin Richardson
        Grade: A+
        2. Washington Wizards

        Key additions: John Wall (draft), Kirk Hinrich (trade), Josh Howard (re-signed), Yi Jianlian (trade), Kevin Seraphin (draft), Trevor Booker (draft), Ted Leonsis (owner)
        Key subtractions: Mike Miller, Randy Foye, Shaun Livingston
        Grade: A
        3. Indiana Pacers

        Key additions: Darren Collison (trade), James Posey (trade), Paul George (draft), Lance Stephenson (draft)
        Key subtractions: Troy Murphy
        Grade: A-
        4. Chicago Bulls

        Key additions: Carlos Boozer (FA), Kyle Korver (FA), Ronnie Brewer (FA), Tom Thibodeau (coach)
        Key subtractions: Kirk Hinrich, Brad Miller, Hakim Warrick, Vinny Del Negro
        Grade: B+
        5. New York Knicks

        Key additions: Amare Stoudemire (trade), Anthony Randolph (trade), Raymond Felton (FA), Ronny Turiaf (trade)
        Key subtractions: David Lee, Al Harrington, Chris Duhon, Tracy McGrady, Sergio Rodriguez
        Grade: B
        6. Boston Celtics

        Key additions: Paul Pierce (re-signed), Ray Allen (re-signed), Shaquille O'Neal (FA), Jermaine O'Neal (FA), Nate Robinson (re-signed), Avery Bradley (draft)
        Key subtractions: Rasheed Wallace, Tony Allen, Tom Thibodeau
        Grade: B-
        7. Milwaukee Bucks

        Key additions: John Salmons (re-signed), Corey Maggette (trade), Drew Gooden (FA), Larry Sanders (draft)
        Key subtractions: Luke Ridnour, Dan Gadzuric, Charlie Bell, Kurt Thomas
        Grade: B-
        8. New Jersey Nets

        Key additions: Troy Murphy (trade), Travis Outlaw (FA), Jordan Farmar (FA), Derrick Favors (draft), Damion James (draft), Avery Johnson (coach), Billy King (GM)
        Key subtractions: Yi Jianlian, Courtney Lee, Rod Thorn, Kiki Vandeweghe
        Grade: C+
        9. Philadelphia 76ers

        Key additions: Evan Turner (draft), Andres Nocioni (trade), Spencer Hawes (trade), Doug Collins (coach), Rod Thorn (president)
        Key subtractions: Samuel Dalembert, Eddie Jordan
        Grade: C+
        10. Atlanta Hawks

        Key additions: Joe Johnson (re-signed), Jordan Crawford (draft), Larry Drew (coach)
        Key subtractions: Josh Childress, Mike Woodson
        Grade: C
        11. Detroit Pistons

        Key additions: Tracy McGrady (FA), Ben Wallace (re-signed), Greg Monroe (draft)
        Key subtractions: Kwame Brown
        Grade: C
        12. Orlando Magic

        Key additions: J.J. Redick (re-signed), Chris Duhon (FA), Quentin Richardson (FA), Jason Williams (re-signed), Daniel Orton (draft)
        Key subtractions: Matt Barnes
        Grade: C-
        13. Toronto Raptors

        Key additions: Leandro Barbosa (trade), Linas Kleiza (FA), Amir Johnson (re-signed), Ed Davis (draft)
        Key subtractions: Chris Bosh, Hedo Turkoglu, Marco Belinelli, Antoine Wright
        Grade: D+
        14. Charlotte Bobcats

        Key additions: Tyrus Thomas (re-signed), Kwame Brown (FA), Shaun Livingston (FA), Erick Dampier (trade), Michael Jordan (owner)
        Key subtractions: Raymond Felton, Tyson Chandler, Robert Johnson
        Grade: D
        15. Cleveland Cavaliers

        Key additions: Ramon Sessions (trade), Ryan Hollins (trade), Byron Scott (coach), Chris Grant (promoted to GM)
        Key subtractions: LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Delonte West, Mike Brown, Danny Ferry, Lance Blanks
        Grade: F
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

          Originally posted by Pacers#1Fan View Post
          With Lance being back I would say there is substantial evidence proving his innocence. Otherwise, IMHO, his little timeout would probably still be in effect.

          "Wo, wo wo. Let's just say you know nothing about Lance's charges and leave it at that. If Lance's status with the Pacers told you anything at all about what the New York prosecutors are planning to do, they wouldn't be any good at there jobs."



          And I'm going to stop quoting right there.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

            It really is a very favorable review, given that the Pacers' acquisitions are all question marks. Collison did very well and there's only a small question mark as to whether he can do it again in Indy and do it for a full season.

            But George and Stephenson are very big questions marks. Kenny Williams-sized question marks. James White-sized question marks.

            But a good review is a nice thing.
            And I won't be here to see the day
            It all dries up and blows away
            I'd hang around just to see
            But they never had much use for me
            In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

              Originally posted by Putnam View Post
              But George and Stephenson are very big questions marks. Kenny Williams-sized question marks. James White-sized question marks
              ..... when aren't draft picks question marks? The real question is whether the position in which you were drafting was equal to the amount, and severity of question marks surrounding that player.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                No need to apologize and this is avery sensitive subject for me as well. Im proud to say Im a "mamas boy" and can put into words what I would do if anyone touched my mom.

                the reason peole say "he's young" is because we would like to believe he can make ammends and change his life, more so then a 30 year old

                I appreciate, and enjoy your posts
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                  Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                  I apologize if it came off that way. That wasn't my intention.

                  I just meant they probably figured they can't punish him before the law decides if he needs to be punished.

                  And yea, as a woman and as a person who detests domestic violence for a multitude of reasons, I am taking it a bit personally. If he's innocent, than no harm. But I don't want a domestic abuser on the team, and if he's one, I'm not all for letting him off the hook because he has potential. (And I wouldn't be for letting him off the hook if he was Lebron)

                  It bothers me that people want to let this slide because he's "young" (He's twenty, he should know better..and if ignorance and immaturity is his defense do you REALLY want him on the team.) or because he's talanted. That's what I'm taking offense too. I am sick of people getting let off easy on these things. And on a personal level, Lance has a DAUGHTER. If he did it (which, the probability is extremely high) he needs to get his issues solved..or he needs to be kept away from that daughter and the mother of his child.

                  I'll give him this, at least he hasn't been dumb enough to violate the restraining order (Nate Miles did that at Uconn..)
                  If he is convicted and sentenced to something, as long as he serves his sentence it isn't our place or the Pacers' to keep punishing him. I went through this argument before with someone over the Vick situation. If he serves his punishment that the court deemed appropriate for his crime, then he ought to be given every opportunity to play if that's what he chooses to do. And we have him under contract, so he ought to be given a shot to play here. Just my opinion of course. I'm not condoning his (purported) behavior by any means, I'm just saying that if/once he serves his time he is a free man.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                    Originally posted by dadscout View Post
                    Cleveland Cavaliers:

                    Key additions: Ramon Sessions (trade), Ryan Hollins (trade), Byron Scott (coach), Chris Grant (promoted to GM)
                    Key subtractions: LeBron James, Shaquille O'Neal, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Delonte West, Mike Brown, Danny Ferry, Lance Blanks
                    Grade: F
                    Holy cow, I knew the Cavs lost a lot this offseason, but I didn't realize it was that bad. They practically lost their entire team and front office! They are in seriously bad shape...

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                      How the hell are we ranked ahead of Philly, Chicago and the Knicks in offseason moves? I'm as big a Collision fan as anyone. But is he a better player today than Boozer, Stoudamire, Evan Turner or even Anthony Randolph?

                      This looks like a Mike Wells list more than a Chad Ford list.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                        Originally posted by Indra View Post
                        Holy cow, I knew the Cavs lost a lot this offseason, but I didn't realize it was that bad. They practically lost their entire team and front office! They are in seriously bad shape...


                        It's not all bad. They got a whole lot younger!





                        .
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                          Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                          How the hell are we ranked ahead of Philly, Chicago and the Knicks in offseason moves? I'm as big a Collision fan as anyone. But is he a better player today than Boozer, Stoudamire, Evan Turner or even Anthony Randolph?

                          This looks like a Mike Wells list more than a Chad Ford list.
                          Even his whole years stats are more impressive than anything anthony randolph has done, even when taking into account the fact that his numbers are mitigated by the time he was benched because he had chris paul in front of him. Evan turner hasn't proven to be more effective than collison yet... Collison was first team all rookie, let turner have a rookie season better than collisons then we can talk about him, boozer is a great move, but this list isn't only about Collison, many people believe that Murphy being out is addition by subtraction by itself... As for Amare he is simply replacing david lee, who is also an all star, just of a slightly lesser caliber, while collison fills a huge gigantic hole on our roster.
                          Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                            Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                            Even his whole years stats are more impressive than anything anthony randolph has done, even when taking into account the fact that his numbers are mitigated by the time he was benched because he had chris paul in front of him. Evan turner hasn't proven to be more effective than collison yet... Collison was first team all rookie, let turner have a rookie season better than collisons then we can talk about him, boozer is a great move, but this list isn't only about Collison, many people believe that Murphy being out is addition by subtraction by itself... As for Amare he is simply replacing david lee, who is also an all star, just of a slightly lesser caliber, while collison fills a huge gigantic hole on our roster.

                            Playing devils advocate.....

                            Couldn't it also be said that Murphy was our 2nd best player. That Collison was a late 1st round pick that played well in a small sample. In an offense that is built around showcasing the PG position.

                            How would TJ Ford or Earl Watson have performed in the New Orleans offense last year? That is the real question. Or more so how will Collision be utilized in the JOB system?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                              Originally posted by aaronb View Post
                              How the hell are we ranked ahead of Philly, Chicago and the Knicks in offseason moves? I'm as big a Collision fan as anyone. But is he a better player today than Boozer, Stoudamire, Evan Turner or even Anthony Randolph?

                              This looks like a Mike Wells list more than a Chad Ford list.
                              Boozer and Amare: No
                              Turner and Randolph: Yes, he is better right now

                              I don't see why you think Philly had a good offseason. Besides adding Turner (who really is an odd fit between Holiday and Iguodala), what positive did they do?

                              Chicago probably had a better offseason, so I won't argue much there.

                              Everyone keeps saying the Knicks improved a lot and I'm just not seeing it. Sure, they added Amare, but is he really that much of an upgrade over David Lee? He's better defensively, which is not saying much as he is still a poor defender. I know they got Felton, Azubuike, and Randolph, but those guys aren't game changers. They are nice players with some potential, but they aren't going to set the world on fire.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Chad Ford's take on the Pacer's offseason improvements... from ESPN Insider

                                Yes, Amare is THAT much of an upgrade over Lee, who is right there with Murphy for greatest fantasy basketball player who isn't actually that good at basketball.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X