Tweet
DraftExpress just put out their newest mock draft. It has the Pacers taking Alex Burks and Keith Benson.
Interesting draft movement of some players.
Interesting draft movement of some players.
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: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Enes Kanter?
Yes please.
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, 2004 -
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Fredette ahead of Kanter? Wow, that's some movement.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
read that Jimmer killed the Sac workout, last week.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Uh, I hate that. Only two guys I like are Jimmer and Bismack.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Alex Burks is supposed to be Brandon Roy like, that sounds good to me.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
They changed it again like 3 minutes ago.Originally posted by Speed View Post
I really like Vesely too. He'd be awesome to pair with Jerebko.
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: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Can someone post the mock so all can see it? Thanks
I'd love to have the Celtics #25 pick.
If Philly is going to take Morris as a Big, then I'd be burning up the phone talking to them about Speights for Rush and our 2nd rd pick. They are drafting a Big, they get a better 2nd rd pick, and Speights doesn't seem to be in their future plans.
The Pacers then would have 3yr Big who can play the 4/5. He's far better than anything the Pacers can get at #42 as a Big. It clears more PT for Burks with Rush gone.Last edited by Justin Tyme; 06-13-2011, 01:21 PM.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Ha yeah they had to change it, b/c I read this thread, and then looked at some of the picks like huh? Kanter wasn't to the Piston, nor was Jimmer ahead of him, and Benson wasn't the Pacers 2nd round choice.
I would also like to point out that I think A.J Price was the only non Euro recently that the Pacers have drafted without having in for a workout with the team.
Keep that in mind when you see mock drafts that have the Pacers selecting a player they haven't worked out yet. Even when Bayless dropped to the Pacers, they traded him for Rush who they had in for a workout.
Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2011/
This Mock was last updated on Mon Jun 13th at 01:00:14 PM
First Round
1 Cavaliers
From
Clippers Kyrie Irving PG
19 years old; 6'3"; 190 lbs.
Duke, Freshman
2 Timberwolves Derrick Williams PF
20 years old; 6'9"; 250 lbs.
Arizona, Sophomore
3 Jazz
From
Nets Brandon Knight PG
19 years old; 6'3"; 180 lbs.
Kentucky, Freshman
4 Cavaliers Jonas Valanciunas C
19 years old; 6'11"; 240 lbs.
Lietuvos Rytas, International
5 Raptors Kemba Walker PG
21 years old; 6'1"; 185 lbs.
Connecticut, Junior
6 Wizards Enes Kanter C
19 years old; 6'11"; 260 lbs.
Kentucky, International
7 Kings Jimmer Fredette PG
22 years old; 6'2"; 195 lbs.
BYU, Senior
8 Pistons Jan Vesely SF
21 years old; 6'11"; 240 lbs.
KK Partizan Belgrade, International
9 Bobcats Kawhi Leonard SF
19 years old; 6'7"; 225 lbs.
San Diego State, Sophomore
10 Bucks Marcus Morris PF
21 years old; 6'9"; 230 lbs.
Kansas, Junior
11 Warriors Bismack Biyombo PF/C
18 years old; 6'9"; 240 lbs.
Baloncesto Fuenlabrada, International
12 Jazz Chris Singleton SF
21 years old; 6'9"; 230 lbs.
Florida State, Junior
13 Suns Tristan Thompson PF
20 years old; 6'9"; 230 lbs.
Texas, Freshman
14 Rockets Klay Thompson SG/SF
21 years old; 6'7"; 205 lbs.
Washington State, Junior
15 Pacers Alec Burks SG
19 years old; 6'6"; 195 lbs.
Colorado, Sophomore
16 76ers Markieff Morris PF
21 years old; 6'10"; 240 lbs.
Kansas, Junior
17 Knicks Jordan Hamilton SF
20 years old; 6'8"; 230 lbs.
Texas, Sophomore
18 Wizards
From
Hawks Donatas Motiejunas PF/C
20 years old; 7'0"; 215 lbs.
Benetton Treviso, International
19 Bobcats
From
Hornets Tobias Harris SF/PF
18 years old; 6'8"; 225 lbs.
Tennessee, Freshman
20 Timberwolves
From
Grizzlies Kenneth Faried PF
21 years old; 6'8"; 225 lbs.
Morehead State, Senior
21 Trailblazers Nikola Vucevic PF/C
20 years old; 7'0"; 260 lbs.
USC, Junior
22 Nuggets Iman Shumpert PG/SG
20 years old; 6'6"; 220 lbs.
Georgia Tech, Junior
23 Rockets
From
Magic Tyler Honeycutt SF
20 years old; 6'8"; 190 lbs.
UCLA, Sophomore
24 Thunder Kyle Singler SF/PF
23 years old; 6'9"; 225 lbs.
Duke, Senior
25 Celtics Marshon Brooks SG
22 years old; 6'5"; 195 lbs.
Providence, Senior
26 Mavericks Josh Selby SG
20 years old; 6'3"; 195 lbs.
Kansas, Freshman
27 Nets
From
Lakers Charles Jenkins PG/SG
22 years old; 6'3"; 220 lbs.
Hofstra, Senior
28 Bulls
From
Heat Justin Harper PF
21 years old; 6'9"; 230 lbs.
Richmond, Senior
29 Spurs Nikola Mirotic PF
20 years old; 6'10"; 210 lbs.
Real Madrid, International
30 Bulls Travis Leslie SF
21 years old; 6'4"; 205 lbs.
Georgia, Junior
Second Round
1 Heat
From
Timberwolves Reggie Jackson PG
21 years old; 6'3"; 208 lbs.
Boston College, Junior
2 Cavaliers Jimmy Butler SF/PF
21 years old; 6'8"; 220 lbs.
Marquette, Senior
3 Pistons
From
Raptors Chandler Parsons SF
22 years old; 6'10"; 220 lbs.
Florida, Senior
4 Wizards Darius Morris PG
20 years old; 6'5"; 190 lbs.
Michigan, Sophomore
5 Kings Nolan Smith PG/SG
22 years old; 6'4"; 190 lbs.
Duke, Senior
6 Nets Jeremy Tyler C
20 years old; 6'11"; 260 lbs.
Tokyo Apache, International
7 Clippers
From
Pistons Malcolm Lee SG
21 years old; 6'5"; 200 lbs.
UCLA, Junior
8 Rockets
From
Clippers JaJuan Johnson PF/C
22 years old; 6'10"; 220 lbs.
Purdue, Senior
9 Bobcats Norris Cole PG
22 years old; 6'2"; 175 lbs.
Cleveland St., Senior
10 Bucks Shelvin Mack PG
21 years old; 6'2"; 210 lbs.
Butler, Junior
11 Lakers
From
Warriors Trey Thompkins PF
21 years old; 6'10"; 240 lbs.
Georgia, Junior
12 Pacers Bojan Bogdanovic SG/SF
22 years old; 6'7"; 216 lbs.
Cibona VIP Zagreb, International
13 Bulls
From
Jazz Keith Benson PF/C
22 years old; 6'11"; 220 lbs.
Oakland, Senior
14 Warriors
From
Suns Diante Garrett PG
22 years old; 6'4"; 190 lbs.
Iowa State, Senior
15 Hornets
From
76ers Jordan Williams C
20 years old; 6'9"; 250 lbs.
Maryland, Sophomore
16 Lakers
From
Knicks Jon Leuer PF
22 years old; 6'11"; 225 lbs.
Wisconsin, Senior
17 Clippers
From
Rockets E'Twaun Moore SG
22 years old; 6'4"; 191 lbs.
Purdue, Senior
18 Hawks Ben Hansbrough PG/SG
23 years old; 6'3"; 203 lbs.
Notre Dame, Senior
19 Grizzlies David Lighty SG/SF
23 years old; 6'6"; 215 lbs.
Ohio State, Senior
20 76ers
From
Hornets Demetri McCamey PG
22 years old; 6'3"; 205 lbs.
Illinois, Senior
21 Trailblazers Isaiah Thomas PG
22 years old; 5'10"; 190 lbs.
Washington, Junior
22 Pistons
From
Nuggets Andrew Goudelock PG
22 years old; 6'3"; 200 lbs.
Coll Of Charltn, Senior
23 Magic Justin Holiday SG/SF
22 years old; 6'6"; 185 lbs.
Washington, Senior
24 Cavaliers
From
Thunder Scotty Hopson SG/SF
21 years old; 6'7"; 205 lbs.
Tennessee, Junior
25 Celtics Malcolm Thomas SF/PF
22 years old; 6'9"; 225 lbs.
San Diego State, Senior
26 Lakers Jereme Richmond SF
19 years old; 6'7"; 210 lbs.
Illinois, Freshman
27 Mavericks Michael Dunigan C
21 years old; 6'10"; 240 lbs.
BC Kalev/Cramo Tallinn, International
28 Lakers
From
Heat Greg Smith C
20 years old; 6'9"; 250 lbs.
Fresno State, Sophomore
29 Spurs Cory Joseph PG/SG
19 years old; 6'3"; 185 lbs.
Texas, Freshman
30 Kings
From
Bulls Adam Hanga SG/SF
22 years old; 6'7"; 200 lbs.
Albacomp (Hungary), InternationalLast edited by pwee31; 06-13-2011, 01:24 PM.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
I keep wondering if Biyombo is going to take a Hassan Whiteside drop in this years draft. Is he a rotation guy next year or the year after, even. I'd have to see alot more before spending a lottery pick on him, even in a weak draft. I'd at least want a guy in the lotto who you know will be a rotation guy, right?Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
Reggie Jackson and Darius Morris at the beginning of the 2nd. I'm sure the Pacers could buy a late first/early second if both of those guys are still available. I'd feel much more comfortable going into next season with a backup point with some size (especially Jackson's defensive potential).
Not a huge fan of Burcs, but seems like pretty good value at 15. If he's there and we weren't targeting him, I'm sure we could trade down.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
I'm in the same boat. However, next year's draft is loaded, so maybe a lottery team takes a chance on Biyombo, and possibly end up higher in the draft next year. I'm sure some teams with little pride would go that route.Originally posted by Speed View PostFirst time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: DraftExpress 6/13/11 Mock Out
I am baffled by the interest in Biyombo. That workout vid that was posted recently demonstrated that he has horrible hands and can't shoot outside of 0 feet even with no one in his face. I personally would be floored if anyone took him in the first round...Comment
Comment