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

I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

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

  • #76
    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
    Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer, I don't think Danny would get a vote for that.

    And also just because Danny averages the same as Reggie at the same age doesn't mean that Danny is going to be Reggie.

    This is similar to the people that tried to tell me that DC could be compared to Nash because their numbers are similar in their 3rd year in the NBA.
    :'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

    You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

      Originally posted by doctor-h View Post
      Now with our recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams and maybe even elite. You are delusional. We are 18-12. Our last ten we have a very bad record. We get a win over one of the worst teams in the league at home and had to struggle to do it and all is right in paradise. We are way closer to mediocre than good. You say we should be happy to get to the conference finals and if we do, we are elite. Elite plays for championships not a treat after the game. They are competitors not pretenders. Vnzl is exactly right, we are not there yet. We should not just say we can't beat Miami because they have 2 of the best players on the planet, we should do everything we can to beat them. You say Bird is loyal to his players. I am sure he is but he is loyal the franchise first. He is also one of the greatest competitors of all time. If he can get a piece that will help us compete at the highest level and it takes Granger to do it, Granger will be out of here so fast his head will spin. There are franchises that compete to be the best and some are just happy to be in the league. Everyone knows who they are. They do not settle for mediocrity and will do whatever it takes to win. Sometimes they hit it and sometimes they miss. But at least they are taking a swing at it. I for one, want my franchise to go for it and if they do, I will be proud of them. But if they are afraid to take that swing, I will not support them. We absolutely need a star player, someone that people have got to see play and want to see play. Aren't you paying any attention to the attendance at the games. It is awful and they are practically giving the tickets away. Our city's corporate base could care less about supporting the team because they are not a team that anyone really takes serious and has that name everyone wants to be associated with. The Colts were exactly like this until Peyton came along and look what he did for the franchise. Until the Pacers get someone similar to that, nobody will care about Pacers basketball that much except a few of us diehards. I am sick and tired of hearing on this board how good DC is. You see in New York what a true point guard can do for a team. Again that franchise needed something, found it (probably with alot of luck) but they found it and look at the excitment it has generated. We have got to take that position seriously and upgrade it ASAP or this team is destined to be inconsistent, unable to score when the game is on the line and we will never know how truly good Granger or George or Hibbert can be. They will be somewhere else.
      Having a Star player won't do us any good if we start losing after acquiring that player.

      We're a GOOD team. Once the team start getting more NATIONAL coverage and appear in the playoffs CONSISTENTLY, the attendance will increase.

      Too many of you want to keeping making these tweaks to what we have because it's not "perfect". At this rate, we'll break what we have, end up as a bottom dweller team, then we'll be using hindsight to say "DAMN! Had we just left it alone....".


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

        Originally posted by immortality View Post
        :'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

        You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.
        Except for Darren. He's really the ONLY player that I would trade without batting an eyelash. However, it's mainly because I'm not a fan of small PGs.


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          Reggie was a nobody until 1994. Sure some people had heard about him but believe me in the NBA he was cast in the lot of Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, etc. In fact each year there was an argument that you could say any of those players were better than the other.

          Then in 1994 Reggie had his series in the Garden, his spike moment. But the thing is that in 1994 Reggie's scoring went down, he shot less and focused more on defense. He tried to blend into the team game knowing that he didn't have to have big offensive games for us to win.

          That was seven years into Reggie's career.

          Does that sound familiar to anyone? Who else is in the second tier of NBA star players? Who else has tried to blend into a team game and knowing that he doesn't have to score big for us to win every game.

          Also who is in his 7th year?

          Danny just hasn't had the chance yet to make playoff noise. However who is to say that the United Center can't be his MSG. Danny hates the Bulls as much as Reggie hated the Knicks.

          Side by side the two of them are almost identical through 7 years

          http://bkref.com/tiny/plvc7
          Danny's a good player, but even your numbers show he's made less points while launching more shots. I thought scoring was his forte'.

          His attempts are going to go down as Paul matures and other players start taking the load...and you may see his percentages improve. But his production is going to drop at the same time. It already has dropped.

          Back in 94, Reggie was shooting over 50% from the floor and 42% from three while scoring 20ppg. Granger is scoring almost 20ppg too, but he's shooting 39% from the floor and 37% from three...and that's after he's picked it up.

          IDK, I don't see a future HOF'er in Danny....and to be sure, when the chips are on the table I'd pick Reggie to shoot it 100 out of 100 times.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?
            Obviously the goal is to win game seven of the finals. :-} truthfully I want a full size PG as well.

            Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

              Originally posted by immortality View Post
              :'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

              You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.
              So there is not point to trade either one of our starters unless is for Lebron? Wow.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                Call me crazy, but am I the only who wants to keep the defensive advantage of George @ SG spot and Granger @ the SF spot? We're the ONLY team with a SG/SF combo where EACH player is in the Top 7 for blocks and steals AND Top 10 in STL/TO ratio at their respective position.
                David West gave this as one of his main reasons for choosing the Pacers, citing particularly the length of the starting wings.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                  Unless it is a lopsided trade in our favor, I'd hope we don't trade Danny because like a few of the guys here has said, the defensive match-up for Danny and PG on the floor together is tough for a lot of teams. I think that I'd rather try trading any combination of people not named Danny, PG, DW, GH, RH or DW. I am thinking the cap space will be even more of an advantage rather than the package of players we will be interested in offering.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    So there is not point to trade either one of our starters unless is for Lebron? Wow.
                    Give up, they just don't get it.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                      Interesting topic, for sure.

                      One thing to keep in mind if Danny was moved is the increased burden that would be on Paul as a defender. If he had more plays ran for him (isolation, running through screens, post ups, whatever), that will be more taxing on him from an energy standpoint.

                      Do you think he'd have the energy to play defense against guys like Rose or D. Williams if he had an increased offensive burden?

                      I like the team - I don't see anything happening before the deadline. We could always use another piece, but I just don't see it happening this year.

                      Go Pacers!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                        Originally posted by Foul on Smits View Post
                        Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

                        1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

                        2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

                        A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

                        I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.
                        I'm sorry but this whole post just deserves
                        Did you know Antonio and Dale aren’t actually brothers?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                          I think Danny will most certainly be here. Why would the Pacers even have the desire to trade him now. DWest came here to play with Danny and the opportunity to win.

                          Pacers had a choice last year, either go with a young rebuild, which would've traded Danny to boost this option or rebuild around what you have which is what the FO has done by getting West and Hill in here.

                          If the front office wants to make a major push forward right now then Paul George and Roy Hibbert is your biggest assets for a game changer type trade going into this years playoffs.

                          However, Paul and Danny is prolly the best in the league to possibly slow down Lebron and Wade or Deng and Rose, so it would make little sense to trade Paul with his defense abilities.

                          Hibbert, to me is the best option if any of the starters are traded. However, I think getting Kaman in here would solidify the Paint for 48 minutes and Hibbert would not have to play 30+ minutes, therefor, both Hibbert and Kaman could play a high energetic 25ish minutes apiece.

                          If Kaman was to be here...
                          We would have an 8 man rotation with Kaman, Hill, Hans coming off the bench.

                          If there is a position that needs to be address at this point it would be a quality back up pg or a starting pg to take DC's place.

                          At this point one needs to decide is Kaman or a starting pg more important, I say at this point of the year Kaman is more important. Kaman will be easier to infuse into the team and again should dominate the paint for 48 minutes.

                          I say this cause looking around the league at pg's that would take the team to the next level is few and far from speculating a trade. I see Rondo and Dwill as possibilities but both would rip this team apart on trying to acquire either of them. I puke of the thought of Harris and his 18mil. I'm not hating on Felton, but he would take the Kaman option off the table as he is 7.6 mil and I'd rather have Kaman, DC then Felton, Birdman (for example).

                          My perfect trade deadline deal that is plausible is Kaman and Sessions. It appears that in order to get Sessions, either Lou or Hans contract has to go out to make it work, but with Kaman here, Lou would be the perfect one to move.

                          I like Sessions and DC seems to burn himself out in games. So, like Hibbert and Kaman, DC and Sessions can share minutes and keep the pressure going.

                          With these 2 trades we would have a nine man rotation with Hill, Hans, Kaman and Sessions coming off the bench. Again, Kaman and Sessions would generally see very high minutes. We would also see a rotation of Danny, Paul and Hill in the wing positons. No more Lance, Jones, Price unless foul trouble or garbage time.

                          Hibbert / Kaman
                          West / Hans
                          Granger / George
                          George / Hill
                          Collison / Sessions
                          Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                            If you're in position to be in MULTIPLE game 7's in the conference finals, you're in position to reach your goal of winning the Finals. Just because no one's going to promise you that result doesn't mean you aren't damned close by that point. Typically the line between a team that can do that (make those game 7's) and a team that can win the Finals is thin.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                              Granger's contract expires just in time for Paul George to hit RFA. The Pacers will probably cross that bridge when the time comes.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline

                                Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer...but would not be were it not for his playoff heroics
                                I fixed it for you.

                                And I'm serious. We love the guy, but this is the truth. He was a great catch and shoot guy who was pretty strong (but never really a leader) in 3P%. The playoff moments put him over the top, as they should.

                                And if Granger were to have those playoff moments this would no longer be a debate for anyone. He likely will not, nor will anyone in the NBA have quite those moments. This is just discussing his general impact on day to day games totaling up the impact on both ends of the court.


                                Give up, they just don't get it.
                                Yeah, that's the problem here. It's us not getting that you gotta trade Danny now, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you will NOT BE UPGRADING the team nor addressing any need greater than what you give up when you make this trade.

                                You gotta trade because you gotta trade, and us dummies just don't get it.


                                What piece are you getting that's making the team better...what REALISTIC piece. And just exactly HOW does this piece make the team better?

                                These are the answers you need to bring to this debate. Just lobbing "trade Danny to make the Finals" is nowhere even in the ballpark of remotely close to an answer. Just how in the f-bomb does trading Danny get you to the Finals? Saying "he'll never be the guy to lead you there" is not enough because frankly maybe George "leads" or maybe West "leads" or maybe FA-not-here-yet "leads".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X