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

Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

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

  • #46
    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    4/$40M and I think vnzla and a few others here

    Even I would think 4 years is a little long for a guaranteed contract at that level, and I like David a lot.
    I think it could work if it isn't a normal 4 year contract. Instead of the money increasing every year do the opposite where he gets paid the most in year one, then decrease over time.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

      Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
      I think it could work if it isn't a normal 4 year contract. Instead of the money increasing every year do the opposite where he gets paid the most in year one, then decrease over time.
      Even at that you are talking probably $8M in the 4th year (granted, not so much in future money, but still a lot for the wear and tear on him by nthen) and a pretty hefty increase next year to allow the annual decreases to average 4/$40M. I suspect that won't unload the bullets.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        But if they resign Manu they don't have 10m in cap room. They are at 70m this year, so Jack's 10m only gets you back to 60m, not counting raises.



        Vnzla, I know YOU don't think this situation is good. You dislike every player on the roster, especially Danny.

        But for the rest of PN I think you look at the following and feel like "in their prime" is a great description of the core...
        PG Hill 26
        SG Paul 22
        SF Danny 29
        PF West 32
        C Roy 26

        SG Green 27
        SF Young 27
        PF/C Mahinmi 26

        West might be at the edge of his range, though his play this year shows full recovery of his game and good health which leads me to believe that 3-4 more years of a level in this range or just slightly lower is very possible. Every other guy is older than "rookie green" and just at the edge of that great 26-34 years old window of prime play: old enough to know the game, young enough to execute.

        It's probably the largest possible window of assembled talent you could get, minus hitting the lottery for a top 3 pick 3-4 years in a row and not missing on any of those picks (see OKC and basically no one else).

        6 of the 8 guys are right in the 26-30 window, one is younger than that even, and the other is your classic VET LEADER.

        Look at the 1998 Pacers who were about to go on a 3 year run at the title (minus Jordan, 4pt play, Shaq/Kobe).
        Jax 32
        Reggie 32
        McKey 31
        Dale 28
        Rik 31

        Best 25
        Rose 25
        Mullin 34
        Tony 29

        Only 4 of 9 were below 30 and only 2 were at the beginning of their "prime" window. They'd just missed the playoffs after being knocked out in round 1 the prior season. So the Vnzla plan is "dump all these guys who aren't in their prime", which would have been dumb.


        If this team is moving West, then that means that they don't think this core group can win games and you might as well move every single guy except Paul...a group you only just finished assembling last season (ignoring the bench change). A group that's being led by a guy in his first HC job who is still unproven himself.

        You don't punt on that. That's a panic move. This stopped being a rebuild when they traded for Hill and signed West, and then even more so when they paid Roy and Hill. And frankly if Roy was scoring at the rate he did just last year, then he'd be worth the deal given how his defense has been.

        I'm sick of people treating 67 degrees the same as freezing, the old "if you aren't #1 you are #last" attitude. The offense has been starting to sputter to life and it's not even Xmas. Apart from DJ things aren't way off kilter because we've seen Roy get into mind funks based on pressure and we know he can get out of them.

        If you fix BU point guard and get Roy making normal shots then this team is rolling and has every reason in the world to think it could repeat that output for another 4-5 years. By then West will be wrapping up and Danny will only have a couple of more years, but then they will have West coming off the books and maybe Danny as well and would be able to retool with Paul-Hill-Roy wrapping up another 3-4 years as the vets.

        That's a sound 7-9 year plan.

        Giving up the top piece you have and the team's best leader in order to get a draft pick for some kind of 2nd generation rebuild? That makes no sense at all.
        So according to you players primes are from the age of 22 until they are close to 40 ok then keep believing that, and you are wrong I don't hate the players stop with that bs, just because I don't think that they are competing for a championship like you does not mean that I hate them, I just don't use the blue and gold glasses like some people....
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

          I said if we were at .500 give or take a game after 21 games without Danny, I'd be happy. There's no reason not to be. Are we a contender with Danny right away? No, probably not, are we at least what we were last year? I think so. So I don't see what the issue is on that front. I think we all recognized we still needed another piece, and I think once Dnany is back that still hols true, assuming we know Danny is going to be healthy then yes we should be looking, but I don't know if they know that Danny is going to be healthy yet.


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

            I think a player's "prime" is probably on average from 28 to 34. If it's not then I guess Lebron is sort of screwed.


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              Even at that you are talking probably $8M in the 4th year (granted, not so much in future money, but still a lot for the wear and tear on him by nthen) and a pretty hefty increase next year to allow the annual decreases to average 4/$40M. I suspect that won't unload the bullets.
              Yeah, I completely understand. I really doubt the West would get any offer for more than 3 years. He is just at that age where teams stop looking at you as a long term answer, but a short term one. So I don't think we really need to worry about 4 guaranteed years. We could probably get away with the last year being a team option, and flatten out the pay increase/decrease some.
              Last edited by Eleazar; 12-12-2012, 02:45 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                I think you offer West 3 yrs/24 million and hope that no team is going to go so far over that as to make it worth West to move. I would consider going 3 yrs/30 million, but I wouldn't be thrilled about it. I wouldn't give him a guaranteed 4th year under any circumstances right now. I would give him a team option though for a 4th year if that would make him feel better, especially if he is confident he will continue to play well.


                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                  If they were to shut this down. They would trade Roy and Danny and let West walk. Not resign Tyler and Augustin and let Hill and Paul be the only bright spot and lottery it up for a few seasons. Then when Hill and Paul are in their "prime" still they will have young lottery pieces to really challenge.

                  Its a 4 year window probably that will result in us losing George (inflated numbers on a lottery team), a botched lottery pick, and injuries. Or we can rearrange our bench and hope that Roy is in a slump, Danny can comeback, and George be a consistent scorer.

                  Either way we are at the start of this not the end. So quit trying to pitch that it is dooms day 1/4 of the way into the season. Get Real!!!!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                    I don't see who's lining up to give D West 4 years 40 plus million, maybe there is, I don't know. I think its like anything else, its not sign David West at all costs, but 3 years at 30 plus million sounds reasonable. His game isn't predicated on traditional athleticism, I could easily see him playing to that level through that contract. You can still take a run at Milsap and Josh Smith, but in a reasonable way. If someone is offering 4 years 50 million, let him go, but I don't see it. The other thing to consider is who fills his position.... So back to the point of primes, you waste Danny's prime by not having a viable PF or making him play PF, that will injure him. So ya, I guess we'll see what his market value is... I would have never dreamed Roy's was a max contract, so who knows.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      If they were to shut this down. They would trade Roy and Danny and let West walk. Not resign Tyler and Augustin and let Hill and Paul be the only bright spot and lottery it up for a few seasons. Then when Hill and Paul are in their "prime" still they will have young lottery pieces to really challenge.

                      Its a 4 year window probably that will result in us losing George (inflated numbers on a lottery team), a botched lottery pick, and injuries. Or we can rearrange our bench and hope that Roy is in a slump, Danny can comeback, and George be a consistent scorer.

                      Either way we are at the start of this not the end. So quit trying to pitch that it is dooms day 1/4 of the way into the season. Get Real!!!!
                      Bad teams are always constantly rebuilding. Good teams are constantly reloading. The fan base is almost gone. Another rebuild will result in the Pacers playing elsewhere (Seattle?) ...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I think a player's "prime" is probably on average from 28 to 34. If it's not then I guess Lebron is sort of screwed.
                        Great players primes are from about 26/27 to 34, regular player primes are from 26 to 30/31, Seth thinks everybody is in their prime on the Pacers, from the 22 years old guy to the 33 years old guy, I want to know what he is drinking.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          But for the rest of PN I think you look at the following and feel like "in their prime" is a great description of the core...
                          PG Hill 26
                          SG Paul 22
                          SF Danny 29
                          PF West 32
                          C Roy 26

                          SG Green 27
                          SF Young 27
                          PF/C Mahinmi 26

                          West might be at the edge of his range, though his play this year shows full recovery of his game and good health which leads me to believe that 3-4 more years of a level in this range or just slightly lower is very possible. Every other guy is older than "rookie green" and just at the edge of that great 26-34 years old window of prime play: old enough to know the game, young enough to execute.

                          It's probably the largest possible window of assembled talent you could get, minus hitting the lottery for a top 3 pick 3-4 years in a row and not missing on any of those picks (see OKC and basically no one else).

                          6 of the 8 guys are right in the 26-30 window, one is younger than that even, and the other is your classic VET LEADER.

                          Look at the 1998 Pacers who were about to go on a 3 year run at the title (minus Jordan, 4pt play, Shaq/Kobe).
                          Jax 32
                          Reggie 32
                          McKey 31
                          Dale 28
                          Rik 31

                          Best 25
                          Rose 25
                          Mullin 34
                          Tony 29

                          Only 4 of 9 were below 30 and only 2 were at the beginning of their "prime" window. They'd just missed the playoffs after being knocked out in round 1 the prior season. So the Vnzla plan is "dump all these guys who aren't in their prime", which would have been dumb.
                          There were a couple big differences between the 90's team and this team. The first is that the 90's team had the pieces to be able to slowly take over for the veterans as they aged. In 96-97, Jalen only averaged 18 minutes. By the third year of that 3 year run, he was leading the team in minutes. Missing the playoffs allowed the Pacers to take Croshere in the lottery, and by year 3 he was averaging double figures and playing 23 minutes a game. Best and Antonio were really solid bench players that were already there (of course Antonio left).

                          What is there on this team that can compare? There are some on this year's bench that are solid, but this bench doesn't have the future starters/key role players that were there in the 90's. That puts further pressure on the starters to keep up their play, unlike the 90's team where the starters were gracefully being given a lesser role (by that last year Jackson averaged 27 minutes per game, Smits 23.4, and McKey only 19.8).

                          The second is the difference in where the Pacers rank in salary. In 1999, keeping that core together had the Pacers at 3rd in the NBA in overall salary. With ownership not wanting to go above the luxury tax, there's no way they stay anywhere near 3rd in overall salary (they're in between 10th and 15th this year). With that in mind, they are going to need cheap players to not only supplement their core but allow them to slowly take over as parts of the core start to decline. And right now, the only cheap player they have with that kind of upside is really Lance (maybe Plumlee, but his upside is limited), and Lance only has 1 year left of being cheap after this year.

                          I'd love to build a team like the 90's. And unlike some, I think the main core has the ability like the 90's one did to do some damage right now. But this Pacers squad simply doesn't have some of the advantages the 90's one did. If the Pacers end up paying all 5 of their starters over the next year and a half, basically the only upgrades to the team will come from low 1st round draft picks and very low cost bench signings. And unless they get very lucky with one of those, that isn't going to have enough upside to offset any decline from the starters. Even if Lance does work out and becomes a great 6th man, the Pacers likely won't have the money to pay him after paying West, Granger, and George.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            First let me say that in re-reading my response that started with quoting you, I sounded a lot snottier about it than my actual reaction to your particular post/comments.

                            Second of all, I definitely agree with you here. And UB loves defense and fundamentals, two items that are not Tyler strengths. He does not rotate well on team defense and hasn't set a clean pick or screen the entire time he's been there. He has no low post moves at all, does not display good balance or footwork in traffic, and in many ways looks stiff and untrained.

                            We all love effort, but to me West or Paul are putting out just as much effort and making it look a lot easier because they are so much smoother. In the OKC game West got PnR switched onto Westbrook and he and Paul seemlessly unswitched it without missing a beat or giving up space. They were fluid and coordinated which made it appear almost as if nothing had happened. So this isn't just about good handles or a fancy crossover, it's about floor spacing and coverage too.

                            It definitely carries the air of "YMCA" to it.
                            Yeah but Tyler still has like 10 years more in his prime why no keep him?.....
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                              Bad teams are always constantly rebuilding. Good teams are constantly reloading. The fan base is almost gone. Another rebuild will result in the Pacers playing elsewhere (Seattle?) ...
                              I have said that in the past, but there is countless amount of stuff out there saying there is no threat of us losing them.

                              But I prefer reload with core players attached.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Interesting Grantland article: Could These Guys Be Traded?

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                I don't hate the players stop with that bs, just because I don't think that they are competing for a championship like you does not mean that I hate them, I just don't use the blue and gold glasses like some people....
                                In fairness, he said "dislike", not "hate".

                                I'd have to say, who on the roster do you not "dislike" - and that includes players you think are OK but you don't like them due to their contracts? I seldom hear you say a positive thing about anyone that isn't tempered by something negative.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X