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

Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

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

  • #31
    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

    Honestly if Bird/Larry are as hardnosed as you make them out to be this deal is dead. Odom+AB will never happen unless we get more than JO back.

    I guess it's only natural that Pacer fans will over-value their star player. I just think he is a little over-rated considering how injury prone he is and the fact that he plays in the East where the matchups aren't as difficult. I wouldn't rate him that much higher than LO to be honest at this point. Maybe a few years ago yes, but as of right now....no.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

      Originally posted by naptown View Post
      First, as I said earlier, no single trade is going to make the Lakers any better than first round fodder. You just dont have the depth. You either need to build off of what you have now, or make a trade and build off of that. For the year after this one.

      Secondly, the Pacers are in much the same situation except they have the depth. Just not the starters.

      Personally I would pull the trigger and take Brown, Bynum, Cook and Crittenton for JO and get it over with. No trade we make is going to make us anything more than first round fodder as well, so lets at least get some young guys who can make us contenders in two or three years.

      Bynum, Diogu, Granger, Quis, Tins....
      Foster, Murphy, Dun, Williams, Crittenton.....

      You ask me that is a nice place to start rebuilding around.
      I just hope managment doesn't fold up as easy as you just did. What is the point of "getting it over with"? Training camp is a long ways off and the Lakers can just spin their wheels if they want.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

        Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
        Well from my understanding of Jerry Buss's position he is simply not going to make trades to appease Kobe. They have to be for the betterment of the team. LO+AB for JO does not make our team any better, we still get bounced out of the 1st round.

        As far as KG is concerned, we aren't getting him and quite frankly I don't even know if he is going anywhere to be honest. McHale is an even bigger idiot than Kupchak. If Donnie/Larry don't budge on Odom this trade is dead in the water. We will probably keep the same roster plus the few upgrades we can make with our MLE.

        I get the feeling that Donnie/Larry will budge, the Pacer demands keep getting smaller and smaller. First we had to take back a bad contract and include AB+LO, now it's just AB+LO+Filler for JO straight up. JO already stated he will opt out next year, so it's either trade him now or get nothing for him. We are both desperate, nobody is dealing from strength here.
        i wouldn't count on larry and donnie budging. if there is anything donnie walsh is famous for, its lurking and waiting.

        jo has other offers out there, if bynum and odom aren't included we'll look elsewhere.

        the initial deals proposed were oneal and murphy for brown, odom, bynum and a pick ... the argument was that would leave you with no tradable assets (despite having walton along with evans' exp) ... then it was rumored murphy and brown were taken off the table. bynum and odom is actually pretty fair for what JO can provide your team. you said if JO gets hurt you're screwed... but has odom been an iron man lately? if he gets injured you're screwed as well. injuries tend to do that to teams. o'neal has been hurt because he has literally been carrying the pacers on his back. when he has a talented (and bryant is more than just talented) scorer playing with him, you'll probably find he'll be a lot healthier.

        you ask us to have faith in bynum's potential, why couldn't you do the same with JOs potential? yes he's older but have you actually thought about what having a true frontcourt scorer like JO will do to help free up Kobe?

        what you have to ask yourself: if the situation were reversed would you make the trade? if i were the lakers and i could get JO for Odom/Bynum/Farmar i'd do it. JO can change a game differently than odom and definitely bynum, both offensively and defensively. knowing that i have kobe and might be able to go after a big like magloire, maybe a wing like Morris Peterson... you still will have kwame, walton, evans and future picks to offer. thats plenty of trade bait. if kobe bryant were not on my team, no way would i trade LO/Bynum for O'Neal. but the risk is worth it if it pays off.

        if you seriously think if you were donnie and larry JO isn't worth more than an injured underwhelming exp contract, and two raw prospects you really haven't paid attention to how the pacers run their franchise. and you need to find a destination for kobe stat.
        This is the darkest timeline.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          I just hope managment doesn't fold up as easy as you just did. What is the point of "getting it over with"? Training camp is a long ways off and the Lakers can just spin their wheels if they want.
          I am not folding up. I think it is a step in the right direction. Bringing in Odom is just going to stunt the development of the youngsters on our team.

          With Bynum and Crittenton we could have one of the best C/PG combos in the NBA in 2-3 years. Throw in Danny, Williams and Ike and we have a chance at something special for years to come considering they are all very young.

          This next year is toast folks. Getting Odom in the deal aint going to make that any different. Our goal should be two to three years from now. Get these young guys in place and let them play together and get experience.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

            Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
            Honestly if Bird/Larry are as hardnosed as you make them out to be this deal is dead. Odom+AB will never happen unless we get more than JO back.

            I guess it's only natural that Pacer fans will over-value their star player. I just think he is a little over-rated considering how injury prone he is and the fact that he plays in the East where the matchups aren't as difficult. I wouldn't rate him that much higher than LO to be honest at this point. Maybe a few years ago yes, but as of right now....no.
            you're seriously overvaluing lamar odom too. the difference is lamar is a complimentary player and JO is our franchise player. if JO leaves and we don't get a semi-legit #1 option back we're screwed. which means we don't have to deal.

            take a look at jermaine's injury problems... they started the year of the brawl. talk about a team that was decimated with injuries (not to mention suspensions) and then the next year artest flaked, we were in limbo, and JO once again had to carry the team. this season? same thing. we had no shooters, he had to do everything. when you look at his injury problems they all revolve around having to be 'the guy' on a team with few shooters. you'll have other parts to move for a third guy like a MoPete, maybe if you're lucky you lure a Mo Williams from the Bucks.

            its clear you haven't spent a whole lot of time watching JO play. i can't say i'm really overvaluing him because i think JO is a solid player, certainly not my favorite. but when you get a team's franchise player and he hasn't demanded a trade or you're looking to dump salary (we fall into neither) you're going to probably have to overpay a little.

            why can't laker fans find a third team and come up with a deal that would satisfy the pacer needs and let you keep odom? this is what puzzles me more than anything. laker fans are unwilling to find a way to help the pacers out to keep odom. absolutely resolute in their way or nothing.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

              We told the Lakers what we want, and they won't give it. That is where things began and have stalemated ever since.

              So, it's not "dead," per se, it's simply hanging in limbo in case the Lakers change their minds.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                random thought about a 3way... why not involve the nets?

                NEW JERSEY GETS: O'Neal
                LOS ANGELES GETS: Jefferson
                INDIANA GETS: Bynum, Krstic, Brown, Collins, Farmar

                nets get their big for carter and kidd.
                lakers keep kobe and odom but bring in a SF that is used to being a 2nd or 3rd option.
                indiana gets... a lot of centers... i suppose we could swap collins out for a S&T of someone like eddie house, i'm not sure what his $$$ was last year. at the very least it gives us the freedom to move kwame, murphy or foster (maybe Ike?) for backcourt help. a frontcourt of krstic and bynum is really interesting to think about
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                  Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                  random thought about a 3way... why not involve the nets?

                  NEW JERSEY GETS: O'Neal
                  LOS ANGELES GETS: Jefferson
                  INDIANA GETS: Bynum, Krstic, Brown, Collins, Farmar

                  nets get their big for carter and kidd.
                  lakers keep kobe and odom but bring in a SF that is used to being a 2nd or 3rd option.
                  indiana gets... a lot of centers... i suppose we could swap collins out for a S&T of someone like eddie house, i'm not sure what his $$$ was last year. at the very least it gives us the freedom to move kwame, murphy or foster (maybe Ike?) for backcourt help. a frontcourt of krstic and bynum is really interesting to think about
                  I'd hate to see this thread get cluttered with "make believe" trades...
                  ...Still "flying casual"
                  @roaminggnome74

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                    Guys I agree with pretty much everything you are saying.

                    I just don't see where Odom fits on your team. The Pacers aren't going to magically become contenders in the East with him on the squad. He's going to cost a lot of money over the next 2 years, and you guys have a lot of bad contracts already. Might as well accept that next year is going to be a bust and see if you can get a nice lottery pick out of it. What's the point in barely scraping the playoffs every year, it's only going to hurt your team in the long run.

                    Your better off taking our young prospects and hoping some of them pan out. If Bynum develops into a legit center this trade will have already been worth it. You'll have your center for the next 10 years. Add in Crittenton, Kwame, plus whatever other fillers it takes and you have some solid young talent and a nice expiring K in Kwame. I know it's not ideal, but right now it doesn't look like there is anything better out there.

                    I agree on paper this trade is lopsided towards LA. But looking at what your team needs right now it just doesn't make sense to do Odom+Bynum for JO straight up. You say that with JO gone you'll have no #1 scoring option, do you really think LO will fulfill that role? He's barely a 2nd option on our team.
                    Last edited by oneofthesedays; 06-30-2007, 02:57 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                      Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                      Guys I agree with pretty much everything you are saying.

                      I just don't see where Odom fits on your team. The Pacers aren't going to magically become contenders in the East with him on the squad. He's going to cost a lot of money over the next 2 years, and you guys have a lot of bad contracts already. Might as well accept that next year is going to be a bust and see if you can get a nice lottery pick out of it. What's the point in barely scraping the playoffs every year, it's only going to hurt your team in the long run.

                      Your better off taking our young prospects and hoping some of them pan out. If Bynum develops into a legit center this trade will have already been worth it. You'll have your center for the next 10 years. Add in Crittenton, Kwame, plus whatever other fillers it takes and you have some solid young talent and a nice expiring K in Kwame. I know it's not ideal, but right now it doesn't look like there is anything better out there.

                      I agree on paper this trade is lopsided towards LA. But looking at what your team needs right now it just doesn't make sense to do Odom+Bynum for JO straight up. You say that with JO gone you'll have no #1 scoring option, do you really think LO will fulfill that role? He's barely a 2nd option on our team.
                      really? geez i'm sorry i didn't quite understand... i had no idea the lakers were really only looking out for our best interests by not giving us odom. see when you said "That doesn't make us a contender to trade odom/bynum for JO" i naturally assumed you were saying that for the sake of the lakers. i'm truly sorry for misinterpreting.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                        Originally posted by naptown View Post
                        Personally I would pull the trigger and take Brown, Bynum, Cook and Crittenton for JO and get it over with. No trade we make is going to make us anything more than first round fodder as well, so lets at least get some young guys who can make us contenders in two or three years.

                        Bynum, Diogu, Granger, Quis, Tins....
                        Foster, Murphy, Dun, Williams, Crittenton.....

                        You ask me that is a nice place to start rebuilding around.
                        Taking on Cook's 3 year 3.5 mil a year contract is not going to do help us....in fact...I could even argue that it lessens whatever value that we get out of Brown's expiring contract since we have to now pay 3.5 mil a year yet another redundant PF.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                          I don't think it's pivotal that we get Odom, it's just pivotal that we get more than Bynum + filler, which is honestly what Crittendon and Brown are. That probably means a 3rd team, but I really don't think the Lakers are getting O'Neal w/o giving up both Bynum and Odom unless someone is willing to ship us something really good for Brown's contract in a 3-way.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                            Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                            I don't think it's pivotal that we get Odom, it's just pivotal that we get more than Bynum + filler, which is honestly what Crittendon and Brown are. That probably means a 3rd team, but I really don't think the Lakers are getting O'Neal w/o giving up both Bynum and Odom unless someone is willing to ship us something really good for Brown's contract in a 3-way.
                            I agree. You should get more than Bynum+filler for JO. Just not Odom

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                              Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                              Guys I agree with pretty much everything you are saying.

                              I just don't see where Odom fits on your team. The Pacers aren't going to magically become contenders in the East with him on the squad. He's going to cost a lot of money over the next 2 years, and you guys have a lot of bad contracts already. Might as well accept that next year is going to be a bust and see if you can get a nice lottery pick out of it. What's the point in barely scraping the playoffs every year, it's only going to hurt your team in the long run.

                              Your better off taking our young prospects and hoping some of them pan out. If Bynum develops into a legit center this trade will have already been worth it. You'll have your center for the next 10 years. Add in Crittenton, Kwame, plus whatever other fillers it takes and you have some solid young talent and a nice expiring K in Kwame. I know it's not ideal, but right now it doesn't look like there is anything better out there.

                              I agree on paper this trade is lopsided towards LA. But looking at what your team needs right now it just doesn't make sense to do Odom+Bynum for JO straight up. You say that with JO gone you'll have no #1 scoring option, do you really think LO will fulfill that role? He's barely a 2nd option on our team.
                              Bird and JO'B want to make a run for the Playoffs......any Odom+Bynum deal is going to get us farther in any playoff run then any Kwame+Bynym deal. Bird and JO'B wants to get Odom ( over Kwame ) so that they can remain competitive in a weak Eastern Confernence.

                              Odom/Tinsley/Marquis/Granger/Ike/Bynum/Shawne/Dunleavy/Murphy

                              >>>>

                              Kwame/Tinsley/Marquis/Granger/Ike/Bynum/Shawne/Dunleavy/Murphy

                              We may not make it far in the Playoffs....but with TPTB mentality to "simply make the Playoffs"....its Odom is better then Kwame.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                Taking on Cook's 3 year 3.5 mil a year contract is not going to do help us....in fact...I could even argue that it lessens whatever value that we get out of Brown's expiring contract since we have to now pay 3.5 mil a year yet another redundant PF.
                                Cook is irrelevant. Lets get the young pieces (Bynum and Crittenton) together so we can start building towards being contenders again instead of just being perennial 6th-8th seeds. Cook does not hinder us at all in that aspect and can be kept cheaply if he fits in with an up tempo style (all we have seen him in is the triangle in the NBA) or traded easily.


                                Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                                I don't think it's pivotal that we get Odom, it's just pivotal that we get more than Bynum + filler, which is honestly what Crittendon and Brown are.
                                Crittenton is a 19 year old 6'5" PG with loads of potential. If he would have waited til next year after his sophomore year he would have been a top ten pick. The kid may be young but I seen him play at least 10 times last year, he has the potential to be one of the best PG's in the NBA by the time he is 22 or 23.
                                http://ramblinwreck.cstv.com/sports/...javaris00.html

                                Brown is $9 million dollar expiring contract trade bait. Add his salary with hardly anyone else on our team we want to ship out and we may be able to get another very good player.

                                Crittenton and Brown can bring a lot value to our team.
                                Last edited by naptown; 06-30-2007, 05:06 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X