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

Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

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

  • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

    Vnzla, you are sucking the joy out of my forum experience. I've tried at times putting you on Ignore, but you tend to dominate the forum and many, many threads get re-focused to your objection of . So many folks take the bait and enter an argument with you that your posts are quoted all over the place. There is no getting away from you or your arguments. And, oftentimes, if you don't defy logic, you defy sensibility and compassion.

    For the sake of myself and others that have enjoyed this forum and its predecessor for nearly two decades, may I beg of you one simple favor? Please, please, please, try to show a little temperance.
    I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

    Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

      Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
      #7 and a serviceable backup big for Granger? Do it yesterday. We get younger, improve a huge area of need, and most importantly get an important piece in a quality draft for a one dimensional player who has regressed the past 3 yrs (lol @ the dude saying he doesn't feel like he's regressed. are you going on your heart or something?). Granger is a nice guy, and would make a good 2nd fiddle on a championship contending team. But he's also steadily declining, and his value will only go down as the years go by. He's a nice guy and a solid, loyal player. But if he can really bring all that, you do it. Sticking with the status quo will only get this team an exit in the first round in the years to come when Dwight, Bosh and Rose are healthy. A team like this is probably not going to sign a Deron Williams. But they can draft an elite talent, with a high enough pick.
      Some of you are putting too much value on a #7 pick for team that's no longer rebuilding and has entered the retooling phase.


      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


      • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
        I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

        Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.
        i think you have it wrong. I do not hate you; I don't even know you. For all that I know, thou are totally different in person than how one might sum you up from the posting behavior that I have observed here.

        You did start the thread, so yes, I would expect you to respond when you are quoted. And perhaps that it is the trick. I guess folks should simply quit responding to the buttons that you push. But it is just as difficult for the rest of us to not respond as it is for you.

        If we were talking about this one single thread, it would not be a big deal at all. However, we both know that the scope of the problem extends far beyond this one single thread.

        All of us on the forum recognize external trolls... those that support other teams and that wish to come on the forum to only post negative things to disrupt our forum and attempt to cause us to spend so much time arguing with them that we cease to go about our normal day-to-day posting behavior. In the past, this has not been an uncommon thing during the playoffs.

        You have a great deal of passion in your beliefs and support of our team. All of us appreciate that. But, can you see how some of us interpret your constant negative postsi towards a current Pacers player to be something that almost approaches the same level of irritation as that provided by external trolls?

        Comment


        • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          I'm sorry man but is not my fault that people are sensitive around here, I started this thread because I saw the rumor about Danny and people started to jump all over me, it's my right to defend myself, not only that but even though people like you hate me you love to argue with me, hence the guy asking me a question as to why I'm posting so much here.

          Again If you are going to call me out and say bs about me I'm going to respond.
          Ah, I re-read this and now I must say, I get it. Your thought is that people are sensitive and that at times they "jump all over you" and that you will respond if people post "bs about you".

          I suppose all of us are sensitive to some level. I hope that you are not saying that others are sensitive, yet don't see the same characteristic in yourself. But, your words state that you do take things too personally.

          Vnlza, folks don't jump all over you... at least not initially. They take exception to your ideas, because it is ideas and thoughts that we discuss here. They jump on what you post, not on you.

          I guess I've just been whizzing in the wind, because I just didn't get it until now. Don't take things so personally, it is your ideas that we sometimes take exception to, and not you personally. It only has to do with the fact that our vision is not the same vision that you have for this team. Nothing less, nothing more.

          History does not have to repeat itself and things would be much healthier if we would all put the 3x rule into place. No horse has to be killed more than 3 times.

          Comment


          • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            i think you have it wrong. I do not hate you; I don't even know you. For all that I know, thou are totally different in person than how one might sum you up from the posting behavior that I have observed here.

            You did start the thread, so yes, I would expect you to respond when you are quoted. And perhaps that it is the trick. I guess folks should simply quit responding to the buttons that you push. But it is just as difficult for the rest of us to not respond as it is for you.

            If we were talking about this one single thread, it would not be a big deal at all. However, we both know that the scope of the problem extends far beyond this one single thread.

            All of us on the forum recognize external trolls... those that support other teams and that wish to come on the forum to only post negative things to disrupt our forum and attempt to cause us to spend so much time arguing with them that we cease to go about our normal day-to-day posting behavior. In the past, this has not been an uncommon thing during the playoffs.

            You have a great deal of passion in your beliefs and support of our team. All of us appreciate that. But, can you see how some of us interpret your constant negative postsi towards a current Pacers player to be something that almost approaches the same level of irritation as that provided by external trolls?
            I didn't push any buttons it was actually the other way around with some guy telling us what to think because we are not GM's so we shouldn't have an opinion and as soon as I responded to that I was told that because I disagree I'm a Danny hater so I'm negative, don't worry this is the last time I post anything related to Danny Granger rumors.
            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

            Comment


            • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              Ah, I re-read this and now I must say, I get it. Your thought is that people are sensitive and that at times they "jump all over you" and that you will respond if people post "bs about you".

              I suppose all of us are sensitive to some level. I hope that you are not saying that others are sensitive, yet don't see the same characteristic in yourself. But, your words state that you do take things too personally.

              Vnlza, folks don't jump all over you... at least not initially. They take exception to your ideas, because it is ideas and thoughts that we discuss here. They jump on what you post, not on you.

              I guess I've just been whizzing in the wind, because I just didn't get it until now. Don't take things so personally, it is your ideas that we sometimes take exception to, and not you personally. It only has to do with the fact that our vision is not the same vision that you have for this team. Nothing less, nothing more.

              History does not have to repeat itself and things would be much healthier if we would all put the 3x rule into place. No horse has to be killed more than 3 times.
              Trust me I'm pretty sure that a lot of the responses I get here are from people that take it personal and don't like me maybe not you but other people do and I know who the are too


              Edit: and I think is time to let this thread dye by the way.
              Last edited by vnzla81; 06-02-2012, 01:26 AM.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                segue,

                responding to this. mainly the Shaq trade example. From the LAL viewpoint. Since they were the team with the aging veteran to trade for a bunch of guys. Let's look at how the trade worked out for them. IIRC, they went from a championship contender to an also ran. Missed the playoffs twice, three times until the got Pau Gasol. This was in spite of getting play from Kobe Bryant that was as good as any player in the history of the NBA. This was the period of time Kobe averaged 40 ppg for a month. and laid 88 on Toronto. But despite that, LAL sucked. Even with good value for Shaq.

                Now Shaq >>>> Danny. But the analogy still exists. In almost all 2 for 1 trade, the team that gets the 1 gets better. That is the nature of the NBA. And why most times the team with the best player wins the playoffs.

                I am open to another example. I didn't like the Billups/Iverson Trade as an example. It really wasn't the same kind of trade. I am sure there are other trades that "worked". But my guess is the veteran player was indeed over the hill at the time of the trade and went down hill immediately.

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                . . . Two come to mind.

                Miami Shaq trade. A very promising near-contender (4-2 in conference semis). Best player that year (Odom), a good and rising youngster (Caron Butler), a good vet in low 30s (Brian Grant) for a superstar nearing the end of his prime. It would be a little similar to us trading Granger, George and West for someone like Wade, and building around him and Hibbert.

                Denver Iverson for Chauncey trade.
                I suppose in hindsight it's lopsided since Chauncey did so well and Iverson went downhill very fast. At the time, many considered it an upgrade in identity and fit but a loss in talent.
                Iverson wasn't really their best player but he arguably played a bigger role than Granger does here.

                But look, the key is that some people (rightly or not, annoyingly or not) consider certain trades lopsided in our favor, and you do not. It's a factual disagreement about specific players, not a conceptual one about how to build a contender in general.

                Comment


                • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                  Just my take on everything, if Bird did make a trade it definitely would not be just for the simple fact of shaking things up, you rarely find a trade like this and never with a contender. Bird said in his post season talk that he makes out a 2-3 year plan, he fills that the team that he has together right now will not be able to win a championship with how strong the rest of the top teams are in the NBA and would like to build around PG, Hibbert to make a championship team by the end of those 3 years then yes I believe he would trade Danny for the pieces that help compete his plan.

                  I will say this vnzla81 makes one good point that I agree with, even though we have saw Larry's history and have heard what he says we can only believe a certain amount, as a GM I hope he is always thinking and becoming creative and does not give all his plans out to the public, he can put out general things that most people expect to hear, and things that in all likely hood are pretty solid.

                  While I do think that Danny is one of the "Core Guys" for now, I do not believe that he is the most important player to the core, and if the opportunity comes along for Bird to build what he believes to have potential to be a stronger core during his 2-3 year plan then I think he pulls the trigger on trading DG, and if he sees that opportunity I hope he does, because that is his job, to continue improving us as a team, and I hope he would do this with any player, "IF" he feels like it will make us better.
                  Why so SERIOUS

                  Comment


                  • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                    Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                    Some of these proposed trades are a comical-level of overrating Danny's trade value, almost on par with those Odom and Bynum demands some PDers wanted for a broken-down J.O. several years back.
                    JO averaged 19/10/2.5 at the time.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                      Where's Sassan when you need him...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                        Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                        Where's Sassan when you need him...
                        LOL. That's a name I haven't heard in awhile around here.
                        Check out my autographed 1972-73 Topps basketball project

                        Comment


                        • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                          I skipped a few pages, but Bird has said several times that he will make any trade that will make the team better. I seem to remember might have said once or twice that a certain player is the closest thing we have to untouchable, but that they'll do any trade that makes the team better. Better to met though means we can't sacrifice our ability to match up with the Heat. Sure Wade and Lebron still went off towards the end, but we've got two wings that can slow them down about as much as can be done.
                          "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

                          Comment


                          • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                            Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                            I didn't like the Billups/Iverson Trade as an example. It really wasn't the same kind of trade.
                            Indeed, but I was answering a very specific question there. I wasn't really looking for trades similar to "Lee+high rookie for Granger".
                            In fact, the question was about non-lopsided trades, and to me, that specific trade idea is lopsided. It doesn't necessarily mean we become a better team, but GSW certainly seems to lose value there.

                            If we are talking specifically about teams trading a Danny level player for another fringe All Star and potential, then Jalen for Brad Miller/Artest comes to mind. Jalen obviously wasn't our best player, but he was arguably around Danny level.

                            responding to this. mainly the Shaq trade example. From the LAL viewpoint. Since they were the team with the aging veteran to trade for a bunch of guys. Let's look at how the trade worked out for them. IIRC, they went from a championship contender to an also ran.
                            It's not our situation though, quite the opposite.
                            LA was forced to trade Shaq, and he had a ton of control on where he goes. They salvaged assets they could, they didn't try to take "the next step".

                            They ended up with 2 good young ball handling perimeter players. But they had Kobe and just one ball.
                            They also lost all the supporting players, chemistry and Phil Jackson. Robert Horry, Fisher, Malone, Gary Payton, Brian Shaw, etc. to Smush Parker and Chris Mihm.
                            And then they made it worse by giving away Butler for Kwame.

                            The trade itself was ok in terms of assets.
                            (and some may even call it an amazing trade considering the circumstances. We ended up with Murphleavy and Stojakovic the last time we were forced into trades.)

                            Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                            In almost all 2 for 1 trade, the team that gets the 1 gets better.
                            Unless it's Danny for Danny-caliber-player + a high lotto pick!

                            re that statement, it may seem that way because "1" in the most memorable cases are big time stars, and they get traded mostly because they ask for a trade / intend to leave / or their team wants to rebuild.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                              I'm not against trading DG, but not to GS. I don't really see any realistic trades with GS that make sense. Even if you get a decent return from GS, the pieces you would get, IMO, don't mesh with where the Pacers are - trying to take the jump from good team to contender.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

                                Originally posted by Really? View Post
                                Just my take on everything, if Bird did make a trade it definitely would not be just for the simple fact of shaking things up, you rarely find a trade like this and never with a contender. Bird said in his post season talk that he makes out a 2-3 year plan, he fills that the team that he has together right now will not be able to win a championship with how strong the rest of the top teams are in the NBA and would like to build around PG, Hibbert to make a championship team by the end of those 3 years then yes I believe he would trade Danny for the pieces that help compete his plan.

                                I will say this vnzla81 makes one good point that I agree with, even though we have saw Larry's history and have heard what he says we can only believe a certain amount, as a GM I hope he is always thinking and becoming creative and does not give all his plans out to the public, he can put out general things that most people expect to hear, and things that in all likely hood are pretty solid.

                                While I do think that Danny is one of the "Core Guys" for now, I do not believe that he is the most important player to the core, and if the opportunity comes along for Bird to build what he believes to have potential to be a stronger core during his 2-3 year plan then I think he pulls the trigger on trading DG, and if he sees that opportunity I hope he does, because that is his job, to continue improving us as a team, and I hope he would do this with any player, "IF" he feels like it will make us better.
                                I think is hard to know who are in the core and who are not, remember the rumor were the Pacers were trying to sign West and Nene together? What was going to happen to Roy? like I said before nobody knows what Larry is thinking but Larry.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X