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

Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

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

  • #16
    Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

    IMHO, the starters were never the problem against the Heat. Aside from Game 5, we pretty much played neck and neck with the Heat, and actually led most qtrs. it wasn't until we went with our small, unathketic bench did we lose momentum. When the heat went small, their athleticism killed us. We're taking steps to become versatile enough to be able to match up better.

    Augustin easily replaces DC, just brings a different set of skills and mentality. Green is an athletic scorer who can also shoot the ball well. Ian gives us the long athletic shot blocking big that we've clamored for IDK how long. We still have some cap space to add a cheap vet on the wing. We also have a little bit of cap flexibility moving forward with 13 mil coming off the cap next yr potentially.

    Iike our approach of sticking to our guns and not overpaying Mayo nor Lee no matter how badly we wanted them.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

      I know its a business and emotions shouldn't be involved, but is it out of question that the FO wanted to do right by DC after getting demoted to backup and signing Hill to a big contract? It kind of goes along the lines of why we don't chase RFA, we conduct business like "gentlemen".

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

        Originally posted by ballism View Post
        yes, but we could've kept them all. From an asset standpoint, it's odd. That's an anti-Houston trade.
        I think the plan there might've been to go for another piece. Maybe a signing, maybe a significant amnesty bid.
        And we may still do it. So I don't think we should make any final evaluations on that trade yet.
        But I do wonder if not being able to get rid of Tyler derailed that plan.
        This is where I'm at. I have no problem with exchanging Collison/Amundson/Jones for Augustin/Mahinmi/Green. I don't think we really got any better but we didn't get worse. The issue is in the way it was done. We didn't have to dump Collison and Jones for Mahinimi. We could have just signed Mahinmi and Augustin and still gotten something of value for Collison. You don't give something away for free if it has any value. I was never a big Collison fan but he was worth more than we got for him. Which was nothing.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

          This trade should be looked at in a vacuum and as such I agree with everything in the article, the Pacers were fleeced. Giving away Jones, and DC for nothing wasn't necessary for any of the other moves that were made. We most likely won't even use the cap space the trade generated and both players came off our books this year anyway. We could have easily signed Ian to the exact contract and then moved Jones and DC for future picks. NY wanted Jones for a 2cd. and I really think we could have received a 1st. for DC. Whatever we end up with at the start of the season, we could have had this much more if we didn't donate the assets to Cuban. This trade is just something that I'll have to learn to live with.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            I think most will agree with you. The biggest problem wasn't and isn't that our bench isn't good enough, but it is that our best players 1 through 3 are not good enough.

            But our bench needed an upgrade and that is much easier to do than to acquire players better than West, Roy and Granger. Only way IMO we could have acquired a player better than our best three is to take a huge chance on a player hoping they might turn out to be a better player than any of those three guys. Williams or Howard weren't coming here and neither was Nash. So we would have had to gamble, trade one of our best players for a potential player.

            That is usually a bad strategy. I think this is the correct approach, improve where we can, grow as a team, hope that Paul George becomes our best player and that chemistry and stability pull us through.

            This is not unlike the Pacers from 1994 - 2000. The team from 2002 - 2005 tried the other approach, gamble on some questionable guys and most of you didn't appreciate that approach.

            But overall no, we won't beat the Heat in 2013 if both teams are as they are now. But I'd love to see us in the ECF with the Heat next late May to have that chance.

            Pacers need to take the Dallas Mavs approach. Be as good as you can for as long as you can. Tinker each year and we might come up with just the right mixture and win it all like the Mavs did in 2011. But being as good as you can be every year is huge, if the Pacers are good every year 50-58 wins it is much easier to acquire a player who just might push us over-the-top like Tyson Chandler did for the Mavs
            100% Agree. The best chance we have to be a true contender is to continue to winning, hope our internal talent reaches another level, and possibly have an opportunity to trade for a special talent by being in the right place at the right time, all while not being in cap hell and having manageable contracts across the board.

            Last I checked, EVERYONE has to beat the Heat, and no one did. While we aren't aiming for 2nd place, it's a tall order for any team. While we did not go toe to toe with Miami, we woke them up, and gave them the best challenge of the playoffs, with all due respect to the Celts.

            I like the strategy, I like the contracts, and all the moves were made as one vision I believe, as they seem to fit. We made room for Augustin, by shipping out Collison, who would have been gone for sure next year.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

              I don't think we know the full scope of this trade yet. I might have a tin foil hat on here, but hear me out:

              No one (except for NBA executives) knows for sure how much cap room the Pacers and Mavs each have right now. However, I've read that Dallas has about $4 mil and the Pacers have about $4.5. The Pacers and Mavs have been noted as the two leaders in the Elton Brand amnesty sweepstakes. So...

              Was this trade secretly Collison & Jones for Mahinmi & Brand?
              The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
              http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
              RSS Feed
              Subscribe via iTunes

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                This is where I'm at. I have no problem with exchanging Collison/Amundson/Jones for Augustin/Mahinmi/Green. I don't think we really got any better but we didn't get worse. The issue is in the way it was done. We didn't have to dump Collison and Jones for Mahinimi. We could have just signed Mahinmi and Augustin and still gotten something of value for Collison. You don't give something away for free if it has any value. I was never a big Collison fan but he was worth more than we got for him. Which was nothing.
                Everyone keeps saying that "we could've gotten more for DC" don't you think if we could get more value for him, we would have? Especially if we knew we were going to trade him anyways. Idk why we assume he had Sooo much value around the league. I mean we got him for Troy Murphy lol. I just don't think there's much of a market for DC. I could be wrong but I'd think if we could've gotten more for DC we would have.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Everyone keeps saying that "we could've gotten more for DC" don't you think if we could get more value for him, we would have? Especially if we knew we were going to trade him anyways. Idk why we assume he had Sooo much value around the league. I mean we got him for Troy Murphy lol. I just don't think there's much of a market for DC. I could be wrong but I'd think if we could've gotten more for DC we would have.
                  We didn't get little for Collison. We got nothing for Collison. No, I don't think he has much value. But I also don't think he has zero value. He wasn't a big asset but his contract made it so he wasn't a negative value. You don't send out an asset without getting an asset, no matter how small, back.
                  "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                  -Lance Stephenson

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                    Everyone keeps saying that "we could've gotten more for DC" don't you think if we could get more value for him, we would have? Especially if we knew we were going to trade him anyways. Idk why we assume he had Sooo much value around the league. I mean we got him for Troy Murphy lol. I just don't think there's much of a market for DC. I could be wrong but I'd think if we could've gotten more for DC we would have.
                    Agree 100%. Right now the market is saturated with marginal talents at the PG spot. People say we could have just signed Mahinmi, which is true, but I think we got lucky that Dallas didnt just go out and sign a Felton or Flynn etc. this Trade gave us an opportunity to pick up a player that the FO obviously felt they wanted/needed without having to add salary.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      At no point in time during the playoffs did I ever think to myself, man if only we had a better backup center we could take these guys.
                      We were winning when our starters were in. We lost when the bench was in.

                      Upgrading the bench is a reasonable approach.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                        Originally posted by Peck View Post
                        At no point in time during the playoffs did I ever think to myself, man if only we had a better backup center we could take these guys.
                        Really? That was all I could think about. How the bench Center and PF sux so bad. How they constantly would throw a lead away. How I didn't want to see Lou and Hans out there on the floor. They was terrible to the point of embarrassing. Other then being wowed by Lebron, and wishing Barabosa would show up, this was very much one of the biggest / only things I thought about.
                        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I think most will agree with you. The biggest problem wasn't and isn't that our bench isn't good enough, but it is that our best players 1 through 3 are not good enough.

                          But our bench needed an upgrade and that is much easier to do than to acquire players better than West, Roy and Granger. Only way IMO we could have acquired a player better than our best three is to take a huge chance on a player hoping they might turn out to be a better player than any of those three guys. Williams or Howard weren't coming here and neither was Nash. So we would have had to gamble, trade one of our best players for a potential player.

                          That is usually a bad strategy. I think this is the correct approach, improve where we can, grow as a team, hope that Paul George becomes our best player and that chemistry and stability pull us through.

                          This is not unlike the Pacers from 1994 - 2000. The team from 2002 - 2005 tried the other approach, gamble on some questionable guys and most of you didn't appreciate that approach.

                          But overall no, we won't beat the Heat in 2013 if both teams are as they are now. But I'd love to see us in the ECF with the Heat next late May to have that chance.

                          Pacers need to take the Dallas Mavs approach. Be as good as you can for as long as you can. Tinker each year and we might come up with just the right mixture and win it all like the Mavs did in 2011. But being as good as you can be every year is huge, if the Pacers are good every year 50-58 wins it is much easier to acquire a player who just might push us over-the-top like Tyson Chandler did for the Mavs
                          I think UB hits on the head here. We know the Pacers are maybe a piece or two away, as far as I can tell TPTB looked around saw that the piece wasn't out there this offseason and so they decided to re-shuffle the deck on the bench and keep our starting 5 (which was one of the best units in the playoffs last year) and then come back to the drawing board next summer. Maybe we catch lightning in the bottle next spring and take down Miami, yes, it's a long shot, but it's not impossible.

                          Our bench may not be markedly better talent wise, but we added two key things, backup size and more athleticism. Miles and Green both makes us more athletic off the bench. Mahinmi gives us size that we just absolutely did not have, no offense to Fez, he is hilarious and I hope we bring him back as a 15th man just for his tweets, but Mahinmi is actually competent, we did not have a big competent player off the bench last season. Hans and Lou were two guys with similar skill sets doing a whole lot of nothing for large portions of their time on the court. And we added that backup size and athleticism while keeping our biggest asset off the bench, yes his name is not Darren Collison, but DJ Augustin is just about as close to a carbon copy of Collison as you could get and you could argue that he is a better creator than DC.

                          So yeah we didn't get Eric Gordon and OJ Mayo and sign Steve Nash, but we had a pretty respectable offseason. Are we a markedly more talented team? Probably not, but do I think we are a little better put together? Yes, and I think we have a higher ceiling than we did on Wednesday before any of this went down.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                            Originally posted by mattie View Post
                            Just think of this way and you'll feel better:

                            The Pacers kept the starting lineup the same. They then completely overhauled their bench removing all that was negative (except Tyler) and adding positives at nearly every position. How that can't be seen as a gain is beyond me.
                            Except you can't think of it that way. Pacers are a small market team. They need to take advantage of all assets. This is something the Pacers have missed out on since Antonio Davis. The brawl didn't help anything, but they've been selling low on players for a long time now. Not to mention wasteful draft picks. The long term outlook of this team is not looking good.

                            -How do you not try to get at least a pick for DC? A pick could be helpful in the future. Didn't have to be a pick next year, but maybe 2 or 3 years out.
                            -On top of that, you sign Augustin for more money than what you were paying DC. He's smaller (so he's going to have trouble feeding the post), and he's a horrid shooter but better passer. I don't consider this an upgrade at all. I would say lateral, but the guy is making more than DC. I don't get this at all.
                            -Tyler is a bust and was the wrong pick when the Pacers needed a point and passed on 2 points that could have solved our problems in Lawson/Holiday. This hurts the longevity of the team, cause he's a wasted pick, and now they'll have to search for 2 PFs next year to replace West & Hans. Possibly having to use a 2013 pick on another big man that won't be ready for awhile.
                            -Plumlee was equally dumb. He's not even ready, so the Pacer's brass had to make another trade for a big man. If you take someone that's not ready, go for Moultrie/PJIII/Teague who all have way more upside.

                            Just blows my mind on the shortsightedness of the front office right now.

                            Gerald Green was a very nice pickup, but it's a high risk/high reward. I like these types of moves. Our starting 5 is set, so I would hope the Pacers make some bold moves for the bench.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                              Augustin is making more than DC next year, however DC's cap hold next offseason was going to start at 6.7 million like the article says. I think a lot of are being pretty hard on Augustin to say he's not a better scorer than DC. Collison has a huge problem of just not being aggressive at times, yes he did it in the playoffs, but I need to see it consistently out of him, and I am a guy that absolutely loved DC. Augustin we do not need to worry about that with, he will look for his shot and to create with that second unit.


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                                As I had posted before the trade, Mahimni was / is the best backup option available. I am stoked for this deal. There is no doubt that the Mavs wasn't going to resign him. If we didn't offer what we did. He would be resign by Dallas. FA doesn't mean anything when a Player knows his team wants to resign him and the player would like to be resigned. This trade allowed the Pacers to get the guy they wanted without over paying, He has a very long manageable contract where Hibbert and Mahimni can continue to grow.

                                Also, on a side note, I think Plumlee will be a pleasant surprise to many of you. To have 7'2' Hibbert, 6'11" Mahimni, and 7' Plumlee for the next 4 years will be a real force. I can only hope they all stay healthy.
                                Last edited by Pacer Fan; 07-13-2012, 09:56 AM. Reason: typo
                                Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X