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

Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

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

  • #91
    Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

    Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
    I HATE trading away draft picks. HATE, HATE, HATE, HATE IT!
    That said, is this draft shaping up to have a player better than Anthony Randolph at where we would be picking? This doesn't seem to be all that deep of a draft. I'd like to take a chance on Randolph, on the off chance that all these players start to 'get it' about the same time!
    The Post reported Thursday that Walsh was waffling on whether to trade Randolph to Minnesota for a first-round pick that could be used in an Anthony deal, but the Nets are the ones closest to landing him.
    We're not trading anyone or anything.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
      Anthony Randolph is one year older than Paul George and I don't consider him to have a good basketball IQ yet. Sure Bird values a high basketball IQ but thats not the only thing he values and one thing is for sure Bird has been taking more players with above average athleticism with below average basketball IQ. Players like PG, Lance, even McRoberts and Solo were considered to have low basketball IQ's. To me there are players that will grow to have a higher basketball IQ's and then there are players that will never have a high basketball IQ even with a unlimited amount of minutes. Its hard for me to think that anyone could judge Randolphs potential to have a high basketball IQ at 21 but thats just me.

      When Ike Diogu was a Pacer he was labeled as having a low BB IQ. Ike wouldn't or couldn't pass out of double teams. He was a blackhole with the basketball. I've been keeping tabs on Ike since his return to the NBA with the Clippers, and he averages ZERO ZILCH NADA assists per game. Not even a fraction of a assist per game! He is averaging 6 pts and 4 rebs. Maybe he still can't pass out of a double team. If Jimmy is smart, he'll have the Pacers doubling Ike everytime he gets the ball trying to create a turnover. Ike scorching the Pacers tommorow night should never be something that happens. If it does, I will change my stance about not advocating Jimmy to be fired.

      Personally, I'm one who is glad to see Ike back in the NBA playing, and hope he succeeds for years to come.

      Has anyone else noticed that the Clippers have 3 undersized players who have played PF in in their careers? Ike, Craig Smith, and Ryan Gomes. When Ike was a Pacer, he was at times compared to Smith and Leon Powe as all were about the same size.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        When Ike Diogu was a Pacer he was labeled as having a low BB IQ. Ike wouldn't or couldn't pass out of double teams. He was a blackhole with the basketball. I've been keeping tabs on Ike since his return to the NBA with the Clippers, and he averages ZERO ZILCH NADA assists per game. Not even a fraction of a assist per game! He is averaging 6 pts and 4 rebs. Maybe he still can't pass out of a double team. If Jimmy is smart, he'll have the Pacers doubling Ike everytime he gets the ball trying to create a turnover. Ike scorching the Pacers tommorow night should never be something that happens. If it does, I will change my stance about not advocating Jimmy to be fired.

        Personally, I'm one who is glad to see Ike back in the NBA playing, and hope he succeeds for years to come.

        Has anyone else noticed that the Clippers have 3 undersized players who have played PF in in their careers? Ike, Craig Smith, and Ryan Gomes. When Ike was a Pacer, he was at times compared to Smith and Leon Powe as all were about the same size.
        Its funny to me that you mention Ike because I was very close to using him as an example of a guy who IMO will never achieve a high basketball IQ. He is a classic example of a guy who could put up impressive college stats but he doesn't translate well to the NBA. Being short and strong but not very athletic or smart is problematic. At 27 I think Ike has shown us what he is.

        Contrast that with Randolph and he is the complete opposite of the type of pf we have now. Only Josh comes close but even he doesn't have the athleticism that Randolph has. I am not so high on Randolph that I would deny a good trade for a better player but right now I don't see one magically appearing. Maybe when we get closer to the trade deadline we will get more offers but I doubt it.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

          Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
          Its funny to me that you mention Ike because I was very close to using him as an example of a guy who IMO will never achieve a high basketball IQ. He is a classic example of a guy who could put up impressive college stats but he doesn't translate well to the NBA. Being short and strong but not very athletic or smart is problematic. At 27 I think Ike has shown us what he is.

          Contrast that with Randolph and he is the complete opposite of the type of pf we have now. Only Josh comes close but even he doesn't have the athleticism that Randolph has. I am not so high on Randolph that I would deny a good trade for a better player but right now I don't see one magically appearing. Maybe when we get closer to the trade deadline we will get more offers but I doubt it.
          I know that I am in the minority....but my hope is that we'd see what happens with this Melo-Drama ( I should coin that phrase ) cuz I think that it is holding up the rest of the league on deciding to make any other major trades.

          Keep in mind that although the PF spot is a cause for major concern for improvement....another Starting spot that I think COULD have some room for improvement would be the Starting SG spot. I'm thinking that Starting Quality SGs like Kevin Martin and Iggy ( yes, it's a longshot ) could be had ( depending on what direction their Teams are headed towards ). Also.....you never know what the Nuggets are going to do with Nene.

          We can agree to disagree that Randolph would be worth the pick......but we can agree that the 1st round pick could be used to improve the Team with a more experienced Player....it's just a matter of how we use it.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

            I guess when considering Randolph, I ask myself one question. Even without getting rid of a player, will inserting Randolph onto our roster make us a better team?

            There is no doubt that he has some rebounding ability. Last year he averaged one rebound for each 3 or 4 minutes played. He is not bad offensively near the basket and can shoot a little. He did block a few shots, although I don't think he has a reputation for being a great defensive player.

            Does he add anything over and above what we presently have? My conclusion is that if he does, it is marginal. I don't think that he adds more; I think that he adds something a little different.

            He would probably be stronger near the basket than Hansbrough, for example. But Hansbrough is much, much better 15 feet from the basket. He might get an extra rebound or two than Hansbrough in 25 minutes of action, but due to Hansbrough's aggressiveness and ability to keep balls alive on the boards, I'm not certain that the team as a whole would gain more rebounds.

            If we were considering parting with a first round draft choice (that probably has a 50-50 or greater chance of being a lottery pick) for Randolph, I just think we are setting our sights a little low for the value of the pick.

            I think that if we are willing to part with a first round pick, we should be attempting to get a much better player in return. We certainly have young players and some expiring contracts to combine with the pick to attempt a better trade.

            Acquiring Randolph provides a marginal improvement at best and in no way moves us closer to being a contender. Due to the loss of a first round pick, it could be argued that it actually delays us further from the goal of becoming a contender.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post

              My conclusion is that if he does, it is marginal. I don't think that he adds more; I think that he adds something a little different.


              If we were considering parting with a first round draft choice (that probably has a 50-50 or greater chance of being a lottery pick) for Randolph, I just think we are setting our sights a little low for the value of the pick.

              I think that if we are willing to part with a first round pick, we should be attempting to get a much better player in return. We certainly have young players and some expiring contracts to combine with the pick to attempt a better trade.

              Nice conclusion. He'd bring more length and athleticism, but not the power in POWER FORWARD.

              The Pacers right now have the 13th worse record which already puts them in the lottery with 3 teams breathing down their backs in the East alone.

              I don't want Randolph, but I have no problem trading the 011 1st pick in a trade to up grade the team. Right now that upgrade could be at a # of positions.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                I think that if we are willing to part with a first round pick, we should be attempting to get a much better player in return. We certainly have young players and some expiring contracts to combine with the pick to attempt a better trade.

                Acquiring Randolph provides a marginal improvement at best and in no way moves us closer to being a contender. Due to the loss of a first round pick, it could be argued that it actually delays us further from the goal of becoming a contender.
                Hey if we can combine our first round pick with a expiring or a player we are willing to cut ties on then I say we do it. I just think Bird has been trying to do what you have suggested for awhile now and getting no where. I honestly believe if he could have traded Rush and our first for an upgrade at sg he would have done it. The same for the pf postion.

                The problem that we have is that our assets that we are willing to give up are not going to make any GM look like he came out on top in a trade. No fans are going to be like, "Yeah for expirings and a draft pick.... I want to watch more games now".

                If Randolf could be had for a 14th-17th pick then its a good trade. He does bring something different but its not redundant like Ford and Collsion. His strengths are our weaknesses as a team. Maybe that changes next year but right now we have no one who can block shots like him or get to the paint like him.

                IMO the only reason Walsh would trade him is because of Melo and the only reason he was traded from GS is because Walsh is smart and wouldn't allow Lee to go for nothing. That sign and trade was brillant.

                I thought this video shows his ability to protect the paint. By no means is he a finished product but he is better prosepect to me than anyone we could draft this year. The 1:12 mark is a good place to start.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CDef...eature=related

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                  Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                  Hey if we can combine our first round pick with a expiring or a player we are willing to cut ties on then I say we do it. I just think Bird has been trying to do what you have suggested for awhile now and getting no where. I honestly believe if he could have traded Rush and our first for an upgrade at sg he would have done it. The same for the pf postion.
                  I would agree with that... it's pretty obvious Bird has made attempts. I suppose I would rather wait until summer if necessary and trade either the pick, the player drafted or one of our youngsters if necessary to acquire a better player.

                  In the video, I was impressed with the shot-blocking that was shown. I was a little disappointed at several of the decisions in his passing that led to turnovers, whether they resulted in blocked shots or not. I suppose the talent that I was most impressed with was Randolph's ability to put the ball on the floor, whether in the open court or in drives to the basket.

                  But personally, I want a better, more experienced player.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                    I would agree with that... it's pretty obvious Bird has made attempts. I suppose I would rather wait until summer if necessary and trade either the pick, the player drafted or one of our youngsters if necessary to acquire a better player.

                    In the video, I was impressed with the shot-blocking that was shown. I was a little disappointed at several of the decisions in his passing that led to turnovers, whether they resulted in blocked shots or not. I suppose the talent that I was most impressed with was Randolph's ability to put the ball on the floor, whether in the open court or in drives to the basket.

                    But personally, I want a better, more experienced player.
                    So out of that 8 minute video you were disappointed in the 2 plays where he turned it over and then blocked the fast break shot. Either you are a coach are the most hard core fan I have ever seen on a forum.

                    I think everyone wants a better player than a 21 year old with limited experience. The same could have been said of JO when he was with Portland.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      So out of that 8 minute video you were disappointed in the 2 plays where he turned it over and then blocked the fast break shot. Either you are a coach are the most hard core fan I have ever seen on a forum.

                      I think everyone wants a better player than a 21 year old with limited experience. The same could have been said of JO when he was with Portland.
                      Let's be clear about Randolph's situation in the last 3 years. It wasn't like Randolph was stuck behind some Frontcourt Player that was JUSTIFIABLY better then him and therefore it made sense that Randolph didn't get any minutes. IMHO...this isn't like the situation that we have with PG where here is stuck behind Granger/BRush/Dunleavy and Posey in the SG/SF rotation.....Randolph did have the opportunity and minutes to prove himself in NY and ( to a certain degree ) with GSW....he just hasn't been able to capitalize on it for one reason or another.

                      Let's just say that IF we make a move for him and all it costs us is a 1st round pick....then I will fret about it a little then pray and hope that he's able to get to that next level.....I'm just saying that if he hasn't gotten there after his 3rd year...you really have to wonder what's up with him. BRush was like that where you could see steady but marked improvement in all facets of his game going into the 3rd year of his career.....but after his 3rd year in the NBA....Randolph still has the big "P" attached to his name where he could easily go no where or become something in the right situation.

                      As mentioned before...if he could not excel in 2 systems ( Nellie's and D'Antoni's offense ) that would appear to benefit an athletic and long Forward that was likely very quick and mobile....then what is missing here? That "one reason or another" is what concerns me and why I have weary.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Let's just say that IF we make a move for him and all it costs us is a 1st round pick....then I will fret about it a little then pray and hope that he's able to get to that next level.....I'm just saying that if he hasn't gotten there after his 3rd year...you really have to wonder what's up with him. BRush was like that where you could see steady but marked improvement in all facets of his game going into the 3rd year of his career.....but after his 3rd year in the NBA....Randolph still has the big "P" attached to his name where he could easily go no where or become something in the right situation.

                        As mentioned before...if he could not excel in 2 systems ( Nellie's and D'Antoni's offense ) that would appear to benefit an athletic and long Forward that was likely very quick and mobile....then what is missing here? That "one reason or another" is what concerns me and why I have weary.
                        I am not sure what improvement you see in Rush but he has had more time to improve than Randolph. Your talking about a 4 year swing. Randolph is not a 3 point shooter and could be why d'Antoni doesn't play him. If I could take a 20 year old and have 11/6.5 player I would be happy. What are you missing? Most coaches don't rely on young pf's to retain their job.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                          LB must be high on Randolph if he was willing to trade the first round pick during the summer for him. I hope a deal gets done here shortly, I still think Randolph would really add a lot to the team.
                          Murph

                          Comment


                          • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                            Originally posted by PacerPride33 View Post
                            LB must be high on Randolph if he was willing to trade the first round pick during the summer for him. I hope a deal gets done here shortly, I still think Randolph would really add a lot to the team.
                            Yep. When you have the chance to give up a lottery pick for a guy who couldn't get off the bench on two teams desperate for frontcourt depth, you gotta do it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Yep. When you have the chance to give up a lottery pick for a guy who couldn't get off the bench on two teams desperate for frontcourt depth, you gotta do it.
                              What the hell? Please, by all means, don't introduce reason to this thread!!! After all, it's only been missing through most of the 104 previous posts.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Sources: N.Y. dealing Anthony Randolph for a pick/ possible pacers

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                Yep. When you have the chance to give up a lottery pick for a guy who couldn't get off the bench on two teams desperate for frontcourt depth, you gotta do it.
                                I wonder if we could be lucky enough to get a 1st pick for Josh(no that I want to trade him just saying that at least he can play in the NBA)
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X