Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

2004-02-10

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

  • 2004-02-10

    Blazers reverse field on cap strategy
    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Tuesday, February 10
    Updated: February 10
    8:08 AM ET

    A "watershed day" in Portland? That's the pronouncement from the Blazers after
    swapping Rasheed Wallace and Wesley Person to the Hawks for Shareef Abdur-Rahim
    and Theo Ratliff.

    Watershed? Let us count the ways.

    One, the move signaled the return of Paul Allen to his big-spending ways. For
    those prognosticators who insisted Blazers GM John Nash would only take expiring
    contracts for Wallace, do the math. The Blazers stood to cut $24 million in cap
    space this summer by letting the contracts of Wallace and Person expire. Instead
    they picked up Abdur-Rahim and Ratliff, who are due a combined $25 million next
    season. Factor in a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax hit for the Blazers, and the
    cost of shipping Rasheed out of town is $50 million.

    That's right folks. Allen was willing to spend $50 million through next season
    to get rid of Wallace now. That's more than many NBA teams will spend on their
    entire payroll next season.

    Two, all the talk out of Portland about Rasheed being a changed player? A bunch
    of bull. The Blazers finally were winning, and they were doing it with Wallace
    playing at center and Miles in the middle. Talk of a contract extension leaked
    to the media and glowing stories about Rasheed's maturity seem now to have been
    little more than negotiating tactics to get the best deal for 'Sheed. If he
    really had changed, as so many Blazers were saying, why not keep him and take
    your chances this summer. Folks don't spend $50 million to give up a guy for no
    reason -- not even Paul Allen.

    Three, before the Blazers can credibly claim they have moved into a "new era,"
    they better check their roster one more time. Yes, they've dumped Bonzi Wells, a
    repeated offender in Portland. Wallace is gone, too, which is great. But left
    behind are numbskulls like Ruben Patterson, Damon Stoudamire and, to a lesser
    extent, Zach Randolph and Qyntel Woods. While the face of the Blazers has
    undoubtedly changed, they still have more trouble makers on their roster than
    anyone else in the league. Let's not take down the Neighborhood Watch signs just
    yet.

    Four, the trade does nothing to relieve the Blazers' long-term cap crunch. As
    mentioned, Abdur-Rahim and Ratliff come off the books in the summer of 2005,
    providing $25 million in cap space. But that assumes Portland elects not to
    re-sign at least one of them or give a big extension to Randolph. If the Blazers
    are still intent on clearing cap room, we might have to go through this whole
    process next year with Rahim.

    Five, how about that headline on Blazers.com: "Blazers trade for two all-stars."
    Did anyone else do a double take at that? Who writes these things? Does the fact
    that Ratliff and Abdur-Rahim were all stars once (like in 1776) still qualify
    them to be termed an all-star? That sounds like a bit of an oversell.

    Six, is any one else concerned that Portland's three best players all play the
    same position -- power forward? Yes, Abdur-Rahim can move to the three, though
    he's less effective there, and Ratliff can play some five, at least in the
    Eastern Conference. But the move doesn't address the team's long-term needs the
    way it could have if it instead had traded for Erick Dampier and Nick Van Exel.
    Unless the Blazers have another trick up their sleeve, they're a little
    log-jammed up front at the moment.

    Seven -- admit it, you're surprised it took me this long to propose another
    trade for the Blazers. Right? Well, why settle for dumping half of the bad eggs?
    Is there any way Nash can now package Randolph and Stoudamire or Dale Davis and
    Patterson for a decent point guard and even more cap space? Before firing off
    those nasty e-mails, Blazers fans, lets all admit that Randolph has been fatally
    exposed to too much Blazer-itus. He's showing all the symptoms, and despite his
    great scoring and rebounding numbers, he's among the laziest defenders in the
    league and can't pass out of a double team. Mark some of this down to
    immaturity, but also realize that some guys never outgrow that. Why not trade
    him while he's hot? Abdur-Rahim is better at the four anyway.

    How do you do it? Thought you'd never ask. What about this? Why don't the
    Blazers get on the phone with the Rockets and 76ers and get this trade done:
    Portland sends Randolph, Woods and Patterson to the Rockets and Davis and
    Stoudamire to the 76ers. Philadelphia sends Eric Snow to Houston and Glenn
    Robinson and Aaron McKie to Portland. Houston sends Steve Francis and Eric
    Piatkowski to Portland.

    This is one Francis trade that will work for the Rockets. The team has a $6.9
    million trade exception that it can use to make up for the fact that it can only
    take back half of Francis' value in trade. Snow's salary would fit into the
    trade exception slot and make the trade possible under the rules of the
    collective bargaining agreement.

    Why does it work? For Portland, they would have dumped every bad guy on their
    roster and somehow wound up with Francis -- the perfect type of superstar they
    need to lead their team. They would have to swallow some bad contracts -- McKie
    and Robinson -- to get him, but the good news is McKie-for-Patterson really is a
    wash, money-wise, and Robinson comes off the books in 2005.

    In Houston, Jeff Van Gundy would end the growing blood feud with Francis and get
    back several players who can really help him in the long run. Snow is the
    perfect point guard to play in Van Gundy's system, and Randolph would give the
    Rockets another rock-solid, low-post scoring and rebounding option. In other
    words, no more Kelvin Cato at the four. Money-wise, the whole thing would be a
    wash for the Rockets, though they might have to pay Randolph lots of money in
    the summer of 2005.

    The Sixers move three contracts they've desperately been trying to dump and get
    back two solid players who happen to have contracts that expire in 2005. It
    would be mainly a cap move for Philadelphia, however, there's no reason the team
    can't play as well or better with Davis and Stoudamire in the lineup.
    Around the League

    Burning down Atlanta: The Hawks' motivation is pretty straightforward -- the
    move gives Atlanta roughly $15 million in cap space going into this summer.
    Abdur-Rahim and Ratliff were nice players, but everyone knew Atlanta wasn't
    going to win anything with either of them.

    Disregard all the rhetoric about giving Wallace a chance in Atlanta. It's a
    joke. The Hawks want the cap freedom, and there's no way 'Sheed will play in
    Atlanta next season. A sign-and-trade won't be out of the question, as
    capped-out teams like the Knicks, Mavericks and Rockets likely will show some
    interest in 'Sheed, but none of those teams have players the Hawks are after.
    Most likely the Hawks will just let Wallace walk and start over from scratch.
    My only beef? Why not find a way to work Jason Terry into the deal? Unlike
    Abdur-Rahim and Ratliff, Terry has been the real troublemaker in Atlanta. Expect
    that sentiment to grow now that the Hawks have gone from bad to awful with an
    unmotivated Wallace as the only go-to guy on the roster.

    The good news is that, barring a huge free-agent migration to Utah, the Hawks
    will be able to move Terry to the Jazz in September, a year after the Jazz
    signed him to an offer sheet. Terry still wants to play there, and the Jazz
    should have the cap room to absorb his contract and might be willing to give
    Atlanta a prospect back in return.

    Bulls out of the running: Last week we wrote that the main trade-deadline
    traffic would run directly through four places -- Atlanta, Portland, Chicago and
    New York. The Hawks and Blazers have made their big deals. What about the Bulls
    and Knicks?

    Bulls GM Jim Paxson told the Chicago Sun-Times that after shopping Eddy Curry
    and Jamal Crawford around, he thinks he's going to hold onto both players, at
    least until the summer. Curry has been playing inspired basketball of late, and
    Crawford is a restricted free agent this summer.

    "Eddy and Tyson aren't going anywhere," Paxson told the Sun-Times. And what
    about Crawford?

    "I don't see us doing anything with Jamal," Paxson said. "The reality is we
    still have the chance to match anything he gets in the summer [as a restricted
    free agent]. And who knows? If he wants to be here, he has a new agent [Leon
    Rose], so maybe there's a way we can work something out with him anyway."
    That leaves Marcus Fizer as the only Bull left on the block. Rumors that he may
    be going to the Clippers or the Pistons have been around for weeks, but so far
    nothing has happened.

    Knicks staying out of trading frenzy? The two top forwards Isiah Thomas was
    pursuing -- Wallace and Abdur-Rahim are now off the trade block. That doesn't
    leave him much else to deal with. He'd love to get his hands on Erick Dampier,
    but he doesn't have the expiring contracts to get it done.

    Thomas also appears to be unwilling to trade Kurt Thomas, the team's most
    moveable asset. What does that mean? All the talk about the Knicks being on the
    verge of another big trade seems to be mostly hot air. While anything is
    possible with Isiah, he's going to have a very tough time pulling off a deal if
    Keith Van Horn, Frank Williams and Michael Doleac are the best he can offer.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  • #2
    Re: 2004-02-10

    Peep Show
    By Chad Ford
    NBA Insider
    Send an Email to Chad Ford Tuesday, February 10
    Updated: February 10
    8:41 AM ET


    Philadelphia 76ers: Glenn Robinson is so mad about declining
    minutes that he's liable to keep referring to himself in the third
    person indefinitely. "They knew what they were getting when they
    acquired Glenn Robinson," Robinson said in the Philadelphia Daily
    News. "I'm a scorer. My strength is to score the basketball. When I
    first came here, the first press conference, I said I know I'm not
    the best defender out on the court. That's just like a...defensive
    player out trying to shoot threes. That's like Shaquille [O'Neal]
    trying to shoot threes. I do what I do. What I do, I do it well, and
    I know that, and I know what my weaknesses are. As a team, we've got
    to recognize that, recognize everybody's strengths and everybody's
    weaknesses. We have to play toward everybody's strengths and stay
    away from each other's weaknesses."

    Denver Nuggets: Jon Barry just learned the hard way that the
    shoulder bone is connected to the rotator cuff. "It's just been one
    of those years," Barry said in the Denver Post after consecutive
    injuries to those body parts. "I really felt good about last week
    and the games that I played. (Strength and conditioning coach) Steve
    Hess and I worked really hard to get back into this. I felt strong,
    in great shape and ready to go. I'm just hoping for the best." He
    has already missed 21 games to injury this year and is scheduled for
    an MRI today.

    Cleveland Cavaliers: Hell freezes over. Zydrunas Ilgauskas plays
    defense. "He's mentally focused to what the job is," head coach Paul
    Silas said in the Lorraine Morning News. "He's shooting his outside
    shot well. This thing takes time. He's playing super basketball in
    all phases, not just offensively. He's doing everything."

    Chicago Bulls: The Chicago Bulls love Jamal Crawford. And
    they mean it, too. "That's where Jamal has made his biggest growth,"
    Bulls general manager John Paxson said in the Chicago Tribune. "He's
    been very coachable this year. I think we've shown him from some of
    the things we've done earlier -- trading other scorers -- that we do
    value him as a certain type of player. We think he can score in the
    league. I'd like to think that a guy who has been here for four
    years has to feel like we're trying to help him as a player and put
    him in a position to succeed. I know he didn't feel that way at the
    draft last year. But what he sees now, he should be feeling that
    way."

    Minnesota Timberwolves: Sometimes, sharpshooter Fred Hoiberg just
    needs a little help from his friends. "When I was Chicago and I
    wasn't shooting well, I was close to being found on the ceiling
    fan," Hoiberg said in the Pioneer Press. "It was one of those things
    where I let it get to me. K.G. always talks to me. I didn't have
    anybody in Chicago telling me to shoot the ball. When you're on a
    losing team, everybody tries to get their own. When your leader is
    like that, and your coach wants you to shoot the ball when you get
    open, that's a great thing. You don't get down on yourself as much
    as you would otherwise. And when I get an open look, I shoot with
    confidence; that's the big thing with me."


    Big Dog showing his bark
    Phil Jasner / Philadelphia Daily News
    Barry injures his rotator cuff
    Marc J. Spears / Denver Post
    More defense means more minutes for Z
    Bob Finnan / Lorain Morning Journal
    Maturity secures Crawford's spot
    K.C. Johnson / Chicago Tribune
    Hoiberg coaxed out of his slump
    Mike Wells / St. Paul Pioneer Press
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2004-02-10

      No Need for Wolves to Trade

      By Greg Anthony
      ESPN Insider

      There were a few surprises when the all-star rosters were announced, but as is
      the case every year, there are more deserving players than there are roster
      spots available. Nevertheless, it still will be an entertaining weekend.
      I did receive quite a few passionate responses regarding the "Big 3" column
      earlier this week. I didn't give the old Celtics trio of Larry Bird, Kevin
      McHale, and Robert Parrish any mention, but in all fairness I was focusing on
      the new millennium and therefore omitted quite a few deserving groups.

      That said, let's get to the e-mail &

      Brian Miller, from Minneapolis asks:

      Do you think the TimberWolves will make any deals before the trading deadline?
      And do you think they have a shot at being the No. 1 or 2 seed in the West?

      Oliver Miller has provided Minnesota a veteran presence off the bench.

      A: Brian, if I'm Kevin McHale, I'm standing pat with the team I have. The one
      move they made -- acquiring Oliver Miller -- was a great one, because he has a
      great understanding of how to play the game and takes nothing away in terms of
      chemistry.

      The real question is how long it will take for Wally Szczerbiak to get back and
      how they integrate him and Troy Hudson into the rotation. Remember, until last
      night's loss, the T-Wolves had the best record in the West, and they still lead
      the Midwest Division. I think they have the pieces to really be a factor in the
      West, and there is no doubt in my mind they could and should be a 1 or 2 seed.

      Padraic Duffy from Rapid City, S.D., writes:

      As a Celtics fan, I'm wondering how long do you think GM Danny Ainge can keep
      his job? Obviously he has to get another year, but this team, and the trades he
      has made to "improve" it are a joke. Jiri Welsch is nice, but Antoine Walker for
      Raef LaFrentz is going to go down as one of the worst trades ever. Keep your
      head up, Paul.

      A: Padraic, I hear where you're coming from, but Danny Ainge is probably looking
      three years down the line and is rebuilding. They also got a 2004 first-round
      pick out of the deal, so they'll have two first-rounders in next year's draft.
      You really have to be patient and see what comes of those picks. Remember, Paul
      Pierce was a No. 10 pick, so there is a method to his madness. The real test
      comes in getting two guys who can have an impact and be part of a winning team.
      Plus, Ainge also has the flexibility to package those with someone else and
      still acquire a big-time talent.

      With that being said, I don't see this team as a factor in the Eastern
      Conference for the next two years, and that's why Jim O'Brien resigned. The one
      question or concern I have is, how does Ricky Davis fit long-term, and can he
      become the kind of cancer that those in Cleveland felt he was? That is without
      question a bigger concern during this rebuilding phase.

      Sam Ballah from Queens, N.Y., writes:

      Many players have been early entries into the NBA draft in recent years. What is
      your take on this? Has it become a problem, or is it a good thing for the
      league?

      A: Great question. First of all, it makes the job of a GM a little more
      difficult, because you don't know what the learning curve for the young players
      will be. Will it take three or four years, as it did for T-Mac and Jermaine
      O'Neal? Or will they contribute from Day One, like LeBron and Carmelo? Or will
      you reach a point where you still don't know, as is the case with Eddy Curry and
      Kwame Brown?

      Selecting talent is an imperfect science, because the majority of their success
      depends on their mental make-up. Do they really want to be great? Can they
      handle the pressure? It can be overwhelming for some, and that's why some guys
      don't pan out.

      I'll give you one tidbit: If you look at the top 15 players in the league right
      now (and this is just one list; you can certainly debate one or two), you'll see
      a majority who left school early (or didn't attend at all) and entered the
      league young. Jason Kidd, Shaq, Kobe, KG, Jermaine O'Neal, T-Mac, Iverson,
      Duncan, Chris Webber, Nowitzki, Baron Davis, Stephon Marbury, Lebron, Paul
      Pierce, Peja, Ron Artest, Jamal Mashburn, Ray Allen and you could go on and on.

      Only Tim Duncan went four years. So with that kind of success ratio, I don't see
      the trend stopping any time soon.

      Thanks, and keep the e-mail coming.

      Greg Anthony, a veteran of 11 NBA seasons, is a regular contributor to ESPN
      Insider. Click here to send him an e-mail.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment

      Working...
      X