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 Mock Draft 7.2
1. Irving
2. D Williams
3. Enes Kanter
4. Jonas V
5. B Knight
6. J Vesley
7. T. Thompson
8. Bismack (Sources say he has buyout issues)
9. K. Leonard
10. Jimmer!
11. Klay Thompson
12. Kemba Walker
13. Markieff Morris
14. Nikola Vucevic
15. Alec BurksLast edited by notque; 06-23-2011, 06:00 PM.Removed link to my website after a PM from Able. -
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
It has us selecting Alec Burks!Originally posted by ensergio View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
Can someone copy paste it, I gotta see it allComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
So it comes down too Burks, Singleton, Brooks . I am definetly OK with that group as opposed to Klay, Jimmer, and MarkiefComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
And Marcus Morris, I would guess.Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View PostComment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
I really wish we'd take Singleton....as I mentioned before....we want smashmouth Basketball?
Singleton's defense would be the very definition of that. He'd hound the Players that Danny can't.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
Singleton ( without really looking in depth into him) sounds like Gerald Wallace, no?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
Bobcats getting Thompson and Leonard would be awesome.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
Can someone copy an paste the whole first round please? Like actually copy and paste it.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
Bulls have made a trade with the Charlotte and plan on taking Brooks....
This could turn out as a horrible draft for us if we take the wrong 2guard and Chicago gets the one that turns out to be something... that would hurt... badly
Why so SERIOUS 
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
I cant find anything that says the Bulls and Bobcats have made a trade?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 7.2
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland
(via L.A. Clippers)
Kyrie Irving
Position: PG
Height: 6-foot-4
Weight: 191 pounds
Age: 19
School: Duke
Analysis: I know some uncertainty is still out there. There always is. But all signs continue to point to Irving as the No. 1 pick. He has a chance to be special, and in this draft, that makes him worthy of going this high.
The Cavs may not love what's left for them at No. 4, but at least they walk away feeling that they got the best player in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Minnesota
Derrick Williams
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 249
Age: 20
School: Arizona
Analysis: The Wolves will work the phones until the last minute looking for a trade. If they keep the pick? They are considering Enes Kanter and started telling teams around the league on Wednesday that they're leaning in that direction.
I can see the appeal of Kanter. He probably fits a need more. But Williams is the second-best talent in this draft, and I think talent ultimately trumps need, so they'll take Williams and sort it out later this summer.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah
(via New Jersey)
Enes Kanter
Position: C
Height: 6-11
Weight: 260
Age: 19
Country: Turkey
Analysis: GM Kevin O'Connor is now issuing his famous "no comment" when asked about what the Jazz will do here. They are one of the most tight-lipped teams in the league. They aren't leaking who they'll take at No. 3.
So why did I change this from Brandon Knight to Kanter? Because it's hard to get legit centers in the league, especially ones with Kanter's upside. So are point guards, which is why Knight could be the pick. But as of very early Thursday, I think the Jazz will go with size and upside with Kanter.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Cleveland
Jonas Valanciunas
Position: C
Height: 7-0
Weight: 245
Age: 19
Country: Lithuania
Analysis: We had Valanciunas in this position last week. But on Monday we reported that Valanciunas' buyout with his team in Lithuania would prohibit him from coming to the NBA next season.
The Cavs love Valanciunas, but do they love him enough to draft him even if he won't play in the NBA right away? There are growing signals that they do. Valanciunas was in Cleveland on Tuesday meeting with Cavs brass. They conducted a physical and a workout as well, which has seemingly calmed their fears.
But another serious dark horse here is Tristan Thompson. As I reported on Wednesday, Thompson met with owner Dan Gilbert in Cleveland on Monday, and the Cavs are intrigued. As I gather more info, this is one spot where the mock could change in Version 7.1.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Toronto
Brandon Knight
Position: PG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 177
Age: 19
School: Kentucky
Analysis: GM Bryan Colangelo has been looking for defensive help, and I had been hearing during the past 24 hours that Bismack Biyombo and Kawhi Leonard had risen on the Raptors' board. But if Knight slides this far, I don't think they'll pass.
Knight has tremendous upside, is a good defender in his own right and, alongside DeMar DeRozan, would give the Raptors an intriguing young backcourt.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Washington
Jan Vesely
Position: PF
Height: 6-11
Weight: 240
Age: 21
Country: Czech Republic
Analysis: The Wizards need rebounding and would love it if Kanter was still on the board. They've also been huge fans of Vesely and would jump at the chance to take him here. His ability to run the floor would be a welcome fit alongside John Wall and JaVale McGee.
Tristan Thompson is the other player to watch here. The Wizards need help on the boards, and Thompson is one of the best offensive rebounders in the draft.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Charlotte
(via Sacramento)
Tristan Thompson
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 228
Age: 20
School: Texas
(Sources: Kings trade No. 7 pick to Bobcats)
Analysis: The Bobcats made the first big move of the draft Thursday when they pulled the trigger on a three-team trade that nabbed them Corey Maggette and this pick for Stephen Jackson, Shaun Livingston and the No. 19 pick.
I've heard they want Thompson here. But Michael Jordan did become enamored with Bismack Biyombo at a workout in Charlotte on Wednesday. I'm leaning Thompson here, but will keep digging.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Detroit
Bismack Biyombo
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 243
Age: 18
Country: Congo
Analysis: The Pistons have been leaning toward Thompson. But if he's not on the board, I think their next two options are to select Bismack Biyombo or to trade down in the draft.
For now, I'm putting Biyombo here, partly as a placeholder. He has serious upside as an elite defender, and the Pistons have experience with a similar big man, Ben Wallace. Biyombo should be a good fit next to Greg Monroe.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Charlotte
Kawhi Leonard
Position: SF
Height: 6-7
Weight: 228
Age: 19
School: San Diego State
Analysis: The Bobcats will be thrilled if Leonard is still on the board here. Although Leonard isn't the same player as Gerald Wallace, he brings much of the same intensity. Bismack Biyombo also could be an option here, as well as Chris Singleton and Alec Burks.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Sacramento
(via Milwaukee)
Jimmer Fredette
Position: PG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 196
Age: 22
School: Brigham Young
(Sources: Bucks trade No. 10 pick to Kings)
Analysis: When we first reported a few weeks ago that the Kings were looking seriously at Fredette, there were mostly chuckles. But it now appears to be very close to reality. With Beno Udrih gone, it becomes even more likely that the Kings will go with a point guard. Kemba Walker is another possibility here, but his lack of shooting ability -- in the absence of Udrih -- tilts things toward Jimmer.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Golden State
Klay Thompson
Position: SG
Height: 6-7
Weight: 206
Age: 21
School: Washington State
Analysis: The Warriors would be thrilled with this outcome. They've been concerned that Thompson won't be on the board when they pick. They've been high on him for weeks and feel as if he would bring them another big-time shooter to play alongside Stephen Curry and/or Monta Ellis. Chris Singleton is also a serious prospect to go here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Utah
Kemba Walker
Position: PG
Height: 6-1
Weight: 184
Age: 21
School: UConn
Analysis: Whewwww. I think the Jazz were leaning toward not taking Jimmer Fredette at No. 12. If he's gone, that saves them some serious backlash in Utah. The Jazz were seriously considering Walker at No. 3. If he falls here, I don't think they'll pass on him.
Alec Burks also could be a possibility. I'm told they spent some serious time looking at him in the past 48 hours.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Phoenix
Markieff Morris
Position: PF/C
Height: 6-9
Weight: 241
Age: 21
School: Kansas
Analysis: I had Marcus Morris here in Mock 7.0, but I'm now hearing it's his brother, Markieff, who is higher on the Suns' board. Earlier this year, I wrote that some teams prefer Markieff to Marcus even though Marcus is more skilled.
Markieff has better size and is a better rebounder and shot-blocker. Meanwhile, Marcus is getting pegged as a tweener right now, which may cause him to slide. Iman Shumpert is also strongly in the mix here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Houston
Nikola Vucevic
Position: C
Height: 7-0
Weight: 260
Age: 20
School: USC
Analysis: The Rockets are talking to everyone -- and I mean everyone -- about moving up in the draft. Everyone from the Wolves at 2 to the Warriors at 11 have heard the pitch. I think someone ultimately will bite, and I think it could be Detroit.
But if not, the Rockets are likely to reach a little bit for some size in the paint. They are desperate for it, and Vucevic is the biggest man in the draft. Chris Singleton and Markieff Morris are also options.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Indiana
Alec Burks
Position: SG
Height: 6-6
Weight: 193
Age: 19
School: Colorado
Analysis: Under this scenario, the Pacers' three biggest targets (Jimmer Fredette, Klay Thompson and Markieff Morris) are all gone. Burks didn't work out for the Pacers, but they've done their homework. He's probably the best talent left on the board, even if he does duplicate Paul George to a certain extent.
Marcus Morris, Chris Singleton and Marshon Brooks would also get looks here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Philadelphia
Jordan Hamilton
Position: SF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 229
Age: 20
School: Texas
Analysis: The Sixers need size, but with Thompson, Vucevic and Morris all off the board, the only other big man worth taking here is Kenneth Faried. If Faried were a bit bigger, I think they'd do it. Instead, I think the Sixers will prepare for the inevitable trade of Andre Iguodala.
It may not come on draft night, but most believe it will happen sometime before the season, and that's why Hamilton is the pick. Donatas Motiejunas is another possibility here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New York
Chris Singleton
Position: SF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 230
Age: 21
School: Florida State
Analysis: The Knicks have a bunch of scorers. What they really need are defenders. Singleton will get looks as high as No. 9 to the Bobcats, but I doubt he will slide any further than here. Not only is he the best defender in the draft, but he also has potential to be a spot-up 3-point shooter.
Iman Shumpert, Alec Burks and Marshon Brooks are also in the mix here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Washington
(via Atlanta)
Marcus Morris
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 230
Age: 21
School: Kansas
Analysis: This would be a major slide for Marcus. But his insistence that he's not really a power forward has hurt his stock a bit. Teams don't believe he can be a 3 and now see him as somewhat of a tweener.
Still, at this point, he's a good value and could play some 3 and some 4 in Washington.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Milwaukee
(via Charlotte)
Marshon Brooks
Position: SG
Height: 6-5
Weight: 195
Age: 22
School: Providence
(Sources: Bobcats trade No. 19 pick to Bucks)
Analysis: The Bucks want scoring and are looking for another wing now that John Salmons is gone. Brooks was one of the best scorers in college basketball and wouldn't be a huge risk at No. 19. He could be a steal for Milwaukee here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Minnesota
(via Memphis)
Iman Shumpert
Position: PG
Height: 6-6
Weight: 221
Age: 20
College: Georgia Tech
Analysis: The Wolves added some serious offensive pop with the arrival of Ricky Rubio and, in this mock, Derrick Williams. Shumpert would give them a major defensive presence in their backcourt.
Although he's not the most offensively gifted player in the draft, his ability to guard both backcourt positions combined with his elite athleticism make him an interesting choice at No. 20.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Portland
Kenneth Faried
Position: PF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 225
Age: 21
School: Morehead State
Analysis: The Blazers fell in love with Faried last year before he withdrew from the draft. If they are fortunate enough to get a second chance at him this year, they'll grab him. His relentlessness on the boards is a nice complement to LaMarcus Aldridge's more offensive-minded style.
Markieff Morris, Tobias Harris, Iman Shumpert and Reggie Jackson are others to watch.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Denver
Tobias Harris
Position: PF
Height: 6-8
Weight: 223
Age: 18
School: Tennessee
Analysis: I guess we can't call Harris one of the more underrated players in the draft when he hasn't moved off 22 in any of our mocks. He can play both the 3 and 4, and he has a very high basketball IQ and an NBA body. Harris doesn't do any one thing at an elite level, but he is one of the most well-rounded players in the draft.
Iman Shumpert, Chandler Parsons and Tyler Honeycutt are other possibilities here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Houston
(via Orlando)
Donatas Motiejunas
Position: PF
Height: 7-0
Weight: 220
Age: 19
Country: Lithuania
Analysis: At this point in the draft, you quit worrying about draft needs and you draft according to talent. Motiejunas is a major talent. He's got flaws, but at No. 23, you live with them. If the Rockets don't trade the pick away, Jimmy Butler is a possibility here, as is Darius Morris.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Oklahoma City
Kyle Singler
Position: SF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 228
Age: 23
College: Duke
Analysis: I don't have Singler rated as a top-30 prospect. But I might be mistaken. A source said the Thunder are very high on Singler and believe he could be an Andres Nocioni-type player in the NBA.
He is tough, has a good motor and will be able to knock down open shots. If he plays that role in the NBA, he's well worth the 24th pick. Reggie Jackson, Jimmy Butler and Nikola Mirotic are other possibilities here.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Boston
Jimmy Butler
Position: G/F
Height: 6-8
Weight: 222
Age: 21
School: Marquette
Analysis: If the Celtics are going to keep competing for a title, they need players who know their roles, can play without the ball in their hands and meld in. Butler brings toughness, defense and heart.
Butler epitomizes that approach with his game and would be a great fit with the Celtics as a player who can play multiple positions off the bench. Reggie Jackson is another strong possibility here, as is Norris Cole.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Dallas
Nikola Mirotic
Position: SF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 226
Age: 21
Country: Serbia
Analysis: The Mavs likely will stay primarily a veteran team. So they'll work to add value wherever they can. Mirotic is a talented player who would go 10 spots higher if he weren't stuck in Europe the next two or three years with a difficult contract to escape.
But the Mavs can afford to be patient with a talent like this and hope that in a few years, he'll be ready to step in and play right away.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
New Jersey
(via L.A. Lakers)
Reggie Jackson
Position: PG
Height: 6-3
Weight: 208
Age: 21
School: Boston College
Analysis: Jackson hasn't done any workouts, has a knee injury and isn't sharing his medical records. Why would the Nets take a player like that? Well, they, along with a lot of NBA teams, believe that another team has shut down Jackson's workouts with a promise to draft him.
That shouldn't stop the Nets from grabbing Jackson anyway. Yes, they have Deron Williams. But he's not a sure thing to stay in New Jersey after next season. Even if he does, Jackson would be a terrific backup and could play off the ball in certain situations.
If Jackson hadn't suffered a knee injury just as the draft prep began, he could have gone much higher. Norris Cole, Justin Harper, Josh Selby and Chandler Parsons also are possibilities.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Chicago
(via Miami)
Justin Harper
Position: PF
Height: 6-9
Weight: 228
Age: 21
School: Richmond
Analysis: Harper was one of the best stretch 4s in college basketball last season. He also has size and is a pretty good athlete. The Bulls need perimeter shooting, and Harper should be able to give them some.
Charles Jenkins, Tyler Honeycutt and Jeremy Tyler are also possibilities.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
San Antonio
Davis Bertans
Position: SF
Height: 6-10
Weight: 210
Age: 18
Country: Latvia
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're ready.
Bertans showed he can be a big-time shooter at the Nike Hoop Summit and adidas Eurocamp, and he's only 18 years old. So it's worth taking a flier on him and seeing what he can accomplish after another year or two in Europe.
PICK TEAM PLAYER VITALS
Chicago
Nolan Smith
Position: SG
Height: 6-4
Weight: 188
Age: 22
School: Duke
Analysis: The Bulls need scorers in their backcourt and ultimately need to find a backup for Derrick Rose at point guard. Smith isn't the sort of player who really wows you with one thing. But he's a winner, he's versatile and he's been a solid shooter in college. He's a perfect backup guard. Why so SERIOUS Comment
Tweet
Comment