Tweet
Can anyone who has access to insider post the article?
Thanks.
Thanks.
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.
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
-
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
All year we have kept tabs on the stock of the Top 100 prospects. The list is a reflection of the consensus of NBA scouts and GMs about a player's relative value in the draft.
A mock draft is a different animal all together. In a mock draft, we don't tell you where a player should go but rather what each team in the draft likely would do with its pick.
At this point, very little is set in stone. Expect this mock draft to fluctuate greatly over the course of the next eight weeks.
We still don't know which underclassmen will withdraw from the draft on the May 8 deadline. And we aren't even sure of the draft order yet. We won't know the results of the NBA draft lottery until May 17.
The process of team workouts has just started. Over the next few weeks, the Chicago NBA pre-draft combine, the adidas Eurocamp and hundreds of team workouts will dramatically alter the face of the draft.
Still, we have a pretty good feel for who's going to be in and we do know the lottery odds, so it's time for our first full mock draft of 2011. (If you want to check out what your team would do with the No. 1 pick, check out our Lottery Mock Draft Machine with more than 2,000 scenarios.)
But for now, here's our best stab at a full first-round mock draft, after taking into account team needs.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Minnesota
(25 percent chance of winning lottery)
Kyrie Irving
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-2
Weight: 180 pounds
Age: 19
School: Duke
Analysis: Stop with the David-Kahn-drafting-a-point-guard jokes and you'll realize ... sixth time is a charm. Yes, Kahn has drafted three point guards and signed another two via free agency in his short, two-year term. But to date, none of them has panned out.
Two of them -- Ramon Sessions and Ty Lawson -- were traded. Ricky Rubio is still hanging out in Spain with no definitive answer on when he's coming to the NBA. Jonny Flynn has been a major disappointment, and Luke Ridnour is not the future of the franchise.
Irving, on the other hand, makes perfect sense for the young Wolves. He has the most potential of any of the guards Kahn has recruited. He also has a high basketball IQ, can shoot (something the Wolves really need) and is a high-character player (another thing they could use).
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland
(19.9% chance of winning lottery)
Derrick Williams
Position: SF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 241
Age: Turns 20 on May 25
School: Arizona
Analysis: Williams is an interesting fit for the Cavs. They'd prefer Irving. But if they can't get him, Williams is the guy. If you project him as a small forward, he fits an immediate need. The Cavs still are trying to fill the huge hole left by LeBron James. Williams can't fill it, but he's a terrific talent.
If you project him as an undersized 4 in the mold of David West, he's competing with J.J. Hickson (the Cavs' only other young building block of note) for a spot in the starting lineup. That's not ideal for a team that has major holes to fill, but the truth is Williams is the only other player on the Big Board worthy of a top-two pick.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Toronto
(15.6% chance of winning lottery)
Enes Kanter
Position: PF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 255
Age: Turns 19 on May 20
Country: Turkey
Analysis: Bryan Colangelo has a thing for international players. But that's not the only reason we have Kanter going No. 3. Going into the season, a number of scouts considered him a potential No. 1 pick. Thanks to the NCAA, we never got to see whether he could earn it -- but Kanter has a lot going for him.
He is tough, can play inside and out, rebounds the basketball, and has a higher basketball IQ than most of the kids his age. He's a bit undersized for a center, but his toughness in the paint will be a welcome contrast to Andrea Bargnani's Charmin-soft game.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Washington
(11.9% chance of winning lottery)
Jan Vesely
Position: PF
Height: 6-11
Weight: 240
Age: 21
Country: Czech Republic
Analysis: The Wizards won the draft lottery last year and brought in a thoroughbred in John Wall. What they need is an athletic forward to run the floor with him. Most Euros wouldn't come close to fitting that bill, but Vesely might be the exception. He's terrific in transition and an explosive leaper -- a rarity for Eastern European kids.
He's been a starter in the Euroleague for the past few years, and while his numbers don't necessarily wow you, his game looks like it will translate better at the next level. A bit of a risky pick, but after Irving and Williams are off the board, all the picks are risky.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Sacramento
(7.6% chance of winning lottery)
Kemba Walker
Position: PG
Height: 6-1
Weight: 172
Age: Turns 21 on May 8
School: UConn
Analysis: The Kings have finally come to two realizations in the past year. One, Tyreke Evans isn't a point guard. Two, character and leadership matter. Enter Walker. Not only does he play the right position, but no one in college basketball showed more heart, leadership or a desire to win than Kemba this past season. He has his weaknesses, but he should give the Kings something they really haven't had in a while -- a winner.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah
(via New Jersey)
(7.5% chance of winning lottery)
Brandon Knight
Position: PG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 185
Age: 18
School: Kentucky
Analysis: The Jazz acquired this pick in their February trade-deadline deal with the Nets. They lost their All-Star point guard Deron Williams in the deal but picked up this pick, Derrick Favors and Devin Harris in return. The Jazz like Harris but see Knight as a potential franchise player down the road.
Knight's freshman season was up and down, but he has a few qualities that make him a terrific fit in Utah. He is big, plays defense, shoots the ball well, and is a great kid on and off the court. He should be a perfect fit with the Jazz.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Detroit
(4.3% chance of winning lottery)
Bismack Biyombo
Position: SF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 243
Age: 18
Country: Congo
Analysis: Joe Dumars began building the 2000 edition of the Bad Boys around an unheralded, undrafted big man named Ben Wallace a decade ago. Wallace was raw offensively, but his athleticism, length and aggressiveness on the defensive end set the tone for the Pistons for a decade.
The past few years, the Pistons have lost virtually all of that mojo. Biyombo might be the perfect remedy for what ails them. He has burst onto the scene and could be a risk. But it's hard to find his combination of length, athleticism and motor at this point in the draft. He should be a perfect complement to the more offensive-oriented Greg Monroe on the Pistons' front line.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland
(via L.A. Clippers)
(2.8% chance of winning lottery)
Jonas Valanciunas
Position: PF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 230
Age: 19
Country: Lithuania
Analysis: The Cavs had a lot of luck with another Lithuanian big man a decade ago -- Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Can lightning strike twice? Some scouts believe he's the most talented international player in the draft. But questions about his contract situation in Europe combined with fears that he lacks the elite athleticism he needs to compete in the NBA lower his stock a bit. At this point in the draft, he's worth the risk.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Charlotte
(1.7% chance of winning lottery)
Kawhi Leonard
Position: SF
Height: 6-7
Weight: 225
Age: 19
School: San Diego State
Analysis: The Bobcats are a mess. They have some talent. But they also have huge needs at every position on the floor. Leonard might be a bit of a reach this high, but his game reminds me a bit of a young Gerald Wallace.
He plays with a terrific combination of length, athleticism and motor. While he's not as accomplished a ball handler, he's a better rebounder and shooter than Wallace was at this age. The Bobcats certainly can use both his toughness and his versatility.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Milwaukee
(1.1% chance of winning lottery)
Tristan Thompson
Position: PF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 225
Age: 20
School: Texas
Analysis: The Bucks have two terrific building blocks in Andrew Bogut and Brandon Jennings -- but after that, it's mostly question marks. They traded last summer for Corey Maggette and signed John Salmons and Drew Gooden as free agents, and none of them really panned out as expected.
They really could use help at the 2, 3 and 4 positions. I have Thompson here because, of the players on the board, he's the most likely to be a Scott Skiles-type player. He's tough, aggressive and just a beast on the offensive boards. His skill level isn't particularly high on the offensive end yet, but he's a good fit alongside Bogut on the front line.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Golden State
(0.8% chance of winning lottery)
Terrence Jones
Position: SF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 244
Age: 19
School: Kentucky
Analysis: I'm not sure Jones is the answer here. He struggled in the second half of the season, and many scouts wonder whether he's going to end up being a tweener in the mold of Al Harrington or Marvin Williams. But Jones' upside and his versatility make him a potential upside pick at No. 11 -- especially if he shows the ability to play the 3 alongside David Lee.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah
(0.7% chance of winning lottery)
Alec Burks
Position: SG
Height: 6-6
Weight: 195
Age: 19
School: Colorado
Analysis: The Jazz have traditionally lacked a scoring athletic slasher in the backcourt. It's been an acknowledged need for years. This might be the year that brings changes. Burks is one of the most athletic guards in the draft. He has a quick first step and is a terrific finisher at the rim. His lack of a consistent jump shot and motor lowers his stock a bit. But at this point in the draft, he's worth the risk.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Phoenix
(0.6% chance of winning lottery)
Jimmer Fredette
Position: SG
Height: 6-2
Weight: 195
Age: 22
School: Brigham Young
Analysis: Steve Nash won't be around forever, and if the Suns want to continue to play their run-and-gun style, Fredette might be a great option. Like Nash, he is a dead-eye from long range and has a high basketball IQ.
He doesn't have the ballhandling skills or court vision of Nash yet ... but neither did Nash when he was drafted out of Santa Clara. Fredette's terrible defense raises concerns, but at least he's a fit on a team that has been willing to overlook Nash's weakness in that area for years.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Houston
(0.5% chance of winning lottery)
Jordan Hamilton
Position: SF
Height: 6-7
Weight: 220
Age: 20
School: Texas
Analysis: Hamilton would be a great get for the Rockets here if he's still on the board. He might be the best pure scorer in the draft. Hamilton has unlimited range and is always hunting for his shot.
His shot selection is flat-out embarrassing at times, but when he gets it going, he's very tough to stop. The biggest question will be whether there's enough shots for both Hamilton and Kevin Martin.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Indiana
Marcus Morris
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 235
Age: 21
School: Kansas
Analysis: The Pacers' two biggest needs are an athletic guard who can create his own shot off the dribble, and a long, athletic big man who can block shots and rebound. Unfortunately neither of those players appears to be left on the board. So the Pacers have to settle for the next best thing.
Morris is more of a hybrid forward who can play both the 3 and the 4, sort of like Danny Granger. His ability to stretch the floor and rebound should be welcome in Indiana -- although I'm sure the Pacers will wish he was an inch or two taller. Boston College's Reggie Jackson is another real possibility here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Philadelphia
Donatas Motiejunas
Position: PF
Height: 7-0
Weight: 220
Age: 19
Country: Lithuania
Analysis: The Sixers have a ton of talent in the backcourt. But their frontcourt is a mess right now. Thaddeus Young is a free agent and a bit of a tweener. Elton Brand rebounded a bit this season, but his best days are behind him. Motiejunas might not be the answer, but at this point in the draft, he's worth a look. He's an aggressive scorer who can get to the rim. However, his lack of rebounding and defense is an issue.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New York
Markieff Morris
Position: PF/C
Height: 6-10
Weight: 245
Age: 21
School: Kansas
Analysis: The Knicks really need a center, but you're not finding a terrific option at this point in the draft. Morris might be the best they're going to find. Not only has he proved to be a solid rebounder and shot-blocker, but he has the ability to step outside and knock down jumpers -- a big plus in any Mike D'Antoni system.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Washington
(via Atlanta)
Klay Thompson
Position: PG
Height: 6-6
Weight: 202
Age: 21
School: Washington St.
Analysis: Nick Young is heading into free agency, and the Wizards could use another shooter in their backcourt to complement Wall. Thompson rivals Fredette as the best shooter in the draft and would be a great fit for the Wizards.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Charlotte
(via New Orleans)
Reggie Jackson
Position: PG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 208
Age: 21
School: Boston College
Analysis: The Bobcats, as we noted, have needs just about everywhere. Jackson might be the biggest sleeper of the draft and should be a great fit in Charlotte. He is a terrific athlete, has a ridiculous 7-foot wingspan and shot the lights out this junior season. He has virtually every quality you look for in a modern NBA point guard.
The biggest question I have is whether he'll even be around at this point once he hits the Chicago combine and workouts. I think he could have a Paul George-type rise in this draft. I wouldn't be shocked to see the Bobcats ultimately considering him at No. 9.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Minnesota (via Memphis)
Nikola Mirotic
Position: SF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 226
Age: 21
Country: Serbia
Analysis: Rest easy, Wolves fans. No, we don't have Minnesota taking yet another point guard here. Instead, we have the team taking a point forward. Mirotic is a serious talent -- a versatile forward playing at a very high level in the Euroleague right now.
There are some serious questions about his buyout right now (not sure the Wolves want to revisit this again), but at this point in the draft, he's a great value. If his contract were clean and he could come right away, he'd be a lottery pick.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Portland
Kenneth Faried
Position: PF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 225
Age: 21
School: Morehead State
Analysis: The Blazers were very high on Faried last year when he entered the draft and likely would have taken him in the first round. Faried withdrew, however, then came back to have another terrific season.
I find it hard to believe they'd pass on him if he falls this far. He was the best rebounder in college basketball, plays hard every night and brings some frantic energy to the court. A steal at No. 21.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Denver
Tobias Harris
Position: PF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 226
Age: 18
School: Tennessee
Analysis: The Nuggets have a very bright future, post-Carmelo Anthony. The trade that netted them Danilo Gallinari and Wilson Chandler for Melo might have worked out better for Denver than it did for New York. While the backcourt looks set with Ty Lawson and Arron Afflalo, and Nene and Gallinari look like the future on the front line, there's still a need in the frontcourt.
Chandler is a free agent, and the Nuggets might not want to meet his asking price. Harris might be one of the more underrated players in the draft. He can play both the 3 and 4, has a very high basketball IQ and has an NBA body. He doesn't do any one thing at an elite level, but he's one of the most well-rounded players in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Houston
(via Orlando)
Darius Morris
Position: PG
Height: 6-4
Weight: 190
Age: 20
School: Michigan
Analysis: The Rockets got a career year out of Kyle Lowry, but is he the long-term answer at the point? I think they'd have to take a hard look at Morris if he's here.
He's different than Lowry. He is bigger and really sees the floor well. His lack of elite quickness and shooting ability hurts his stock a bit -- but some scouts compare him to a young Andre Miller.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Oklahoma City
Tyler Honeycutt
Position: G/F
Height: 6-8
Weight: 188
Age: 20
School: UCLA
Analysis: The Thunder are solid at virtually every position on the floor. But with Jeff Green being shipped off to Boston this year, Honeycutt could come in and bring some depth. Honeycutt isn't as big as Green, but he's a talented, versatile wing with a great basketball IQ. He'd be a great fit in OKC.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Boston
Chris Singleton
Position: SF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 225
Age: 21
School: Florida State
Analysis: The Celtics pride themselves on being a defensive team, and Singleton might be the best perimeter defensive player in the draft. He can guard three positions on the floor, and shut down virtually everything with his length, strength and quickness. His offensive game is a still a work in progress, but that's not going to discourage teams this late in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Dallas
Davis Bertans
Position: SF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 210
Age: 18
Country: Latvia
Analysis: It's unfair to compare any young European player to Dirk Nowitzki. But after watching Bertans shoot the lights out in the practices of the Nike Hoop Summit, that's how some scouts were referring to him. Bertans doesn't have Nowitzki's size or strength and looks to be a pretty serious project. But long term, he could be a really nice addition for the Mavs.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New Jersey
(via L.A. Lakers)
Justin Harper
Position: PF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 225
Age: 21
School: Richmond
Analysis: Harper played off the radar for most of the season, but scouts really like him. He is a good athlete, has good size and can really stroke the basketball. He plays a bit like a young Rashard Lewis. He won't take over games very often but is a nice complementary player.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Chicago
(via Miami)
Charles Jenkins
Position: SG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 220
Age: 22
School: Hoftstra
Analysis: The Bulls still miss the explosive scoring off the bench that Ben Gordon used to deliver. While it's a stretch to compare Jenkins to him, it's not totally off. Jenkins can stroke the basketball and was one of the most explosive scorers in college basketball. A sleeper for the late first round.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
San Antonio
Lucas Noguiera
Position: C
Height: 6-11
Weight: 218
Age: 18
Country: Brazil
Analysis: The Spurs have done a good job over the years of finding young international players and stashing them overseas for a few years until they are ready. Noguiera seems like a good candidate.
He's long, athletic and a terrific shot-blocker. He just needs more experience and about 30 pounds of muscle. A few years in Europe should help prepare him.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Chicago
Bogan Bogdanovic
Position: SF
Height: 6-7
Weight: 200
Age: 22
Country: Croatia
Analysis: Bogdanovic likely will stay in Europe the next few years thanks to a new lucrative contract in Spain. But he could be an asset for the Bulls -- especially when they already have another pick in the first round.
Next Five In: Josh Selby, G, Kansas; Trey Thompkins, PF, Georgia; Travis Leslie, SG, Georgia; Jon Leuer, PF, Wisconsin; JaJuan Johnson, F, Purdue. -
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
It's crazy how many mock drafts have Biyombo going to the Pistons.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
Marcus Morris would be a terrible pick for this team. Ugh.
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
He has us taking Marcus and saying we're settling since there are no more rebounding shot blockers, and that we wish he were taller.... then he has the Knicks taking Markief, who is the taller of the twins, and he then goes on to say how the Knicks can use this kid's rebounding and shot blocking!
I know very little about these guys, but from what's stated above, why on earth would be prefer Marcus over his brother?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
IMO Marcus Morris is who I'd pick in that spot as well. He's offensive punch off the bench that the pacers really need, as well as the most talented guy remaining on the board.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004Comment
-
No kidding. Also, given the need for rebounding/shot blocking, if Faried is there we are picking him. Right?Originally posted by Hicks View PostHe has us taking Marcus and saying we're settling since there are no more rebounding shot blockers, and that we wish he were taller.... then he has the Knicks taking Markief, who is the taller of the twins, and he then goes on to say how the Knicks can use this kid's rebounding and shot blocking!
I know very little about these guys, but from what's stated above, why on earth would be prefer Marcus over his brother?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
I thought the same thing, plus Markief can play 4/5 which we need a lot more than another 3/4Originally posted by Hicks View PostHe has us taking Marcus and saying we're settling since there are no more rebounding shot blockers, and that we wish he were taller.... then he has the Knicks taking Markief, who is the taller of the twins, and he then goes on to say how the Knicks can use this kid's rebounding and shot blocking!
I know very little about these guys, but from what's stated above, why on earth would be prefer Marcus over his brother?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
I would love either Morris brother.@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
Faried is a rebounder but not a shot blocker. He's also a poor man to man defender.Originally posted by Professor S View Post
You'd basically be drafting a developmental Jeff Foster.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
How can he do this? Don't they have to wait until the season ends?
Jeff Rabjhons
Butler G Shelvin Mack is scheduled to workout today for the Oklahoma City Thunder, NBA source said.Last edited by vnzla81; 05-05-2011, 02:17 PM.@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
I like the shooter, give me Klay Thompson if he has given up on the Doobie Brothers.You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....Comment
-
At the 15 pick in a weak draft I'll take a Jeff Foster.Originally posted by Kstat View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
Given those choices, I'd rather have Faried too if we're going big. If we go PG, I like the big PG's Reggie Jackson and Darius Morris.
Marcus Morris doesn't seem to fill any need. Yes we need another scorer but not at the 3/4. Reggie Jackson fits better as a scoring combo guard.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's 1st mock
Point is, you need a scorer more than a Jeff foster.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004Comment
Comment