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

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

    John Hollinger wrote an article about the Pacers-Mavs deal, probably saying the Pacers' FO are idiots, etc. but I'm interested in reading the story. Would anyone with Insider please post this article?

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...cers-mavs-deal
    witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

    Originally posted by Day-V
    In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
    Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
    Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.



  • #2
    Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...cers-mavs-deal


    I don't get it.

    On the first day that teams could start making official deals, we had one of the most baffling trades in a while -- Indiana's move of Darren Collison and Dahntay Jones to Dallas for a signed-and-traded Ian Mahinmi.

    Pacers fans complained that they were trading a starting-caliber point guard, one who led the team in PER in the playoffs, for a backup big man, but even that misses the more flabbergasting point.

    Indiana was several million dollars under the cap. Mahinmi was an unrestricted free agent. There was no reason to deal anything to Dallas because Indiana could have just signed him straightaway.

    I have no problem with the Mahinmi part. This was a good value deal for a big guy who has been consistently productive and is fairly young. He'll certainly be an upgrade on Louis Amundson.

    So help me out here. Why in the name of all that is holy would Indiana agree to donate two helpful players on low-dollar salaries to the Mavericks? I know the Pacers were worried about paying Collison beyond this season, but that doesn't mean he had negative trade value. Sources confirm there were no draft picks involved. This was just a straight giveaway, with Indiana giving away two useful players for a marginal cap savings.

    NBA Free Agency
    NBA free agency is under way, and ESPN.com has you covered with all the latest deals, trades and potential moves.
    Free agents | Trade Targets | RC

    • Insider: Free-agent PER rankings
    • More: TrueHoop | Trade Machine

    As for Dallas, it's hard to know how the team got through the call without laughing hysterically. After being snubbed by Deron Williams and Steve Nash and not getting on the radar for Dwight Howard, the Mavs have been working on the difficult task of building a credible team around one-year deals and plunging back into the market next year.

    The Pacers made that task a whole lot easier. Jones is exactly the type of active defender against big wings that the Mavs' roster was missing, and he comes with a reasonably sized expiring deal of $2.9 million. Collison, meanwhile, offers an immediate upgrade on Jason Kidd at the point, and his cap hold for next year is small enough, $6.9 million, that the Mavs probably can play the free-agent market and still keep him in restricted free agency.

    Between this highway robbery and the solid one-year, $8 million deal for Chris Kaman, the Mavs appear to have most of their work done. The team has more than $5 million in cap space available (I mistakenly tweeted $4 million Wednesday, but I hadn't removed Mahinmi's cap hold), which might be enough to win an amnesty auction for another solid player on a one-year deal: Elton Brand. If not, other frontcourt options are out there.

    Once that's done, Dallas can use the under-cap midlevel exception worth $2.575 million to fill out the backcourt by re-signing Delonte West or bringing in another player. That wouldn't leave the Mavs with a championship-caliber team, but they'd be pretty good and have a lot of options going forward.

    Some other thoughts on a busy day:

    • The rest of the league can breathe a little easier now that Brooklyn's pursuit of Howard has been called off. The Nets did everything they possibly could and got creative putting together the potential deal, an incredibly complicated one that involved six sign-and-trades, Sundiata Gaines getting the full midlevel exception and Kris Humphries being paid $9 million in 2012-13. (All this is thanks to base-year compensation rules involving sign-and-trades; let's not get started or we'll be here all day).

    The irony is that Howard wanted Brooklyn and Brooklyn wanted Howard, yet neither side could make it happen. For that, blame two events. First, Howard's decision to sign the opt-in in March when it appeared he was about to be traded to the Nets. Second, the Nets' bizarre trade of the No. 6 pick in the draft for Gerald Wallace. Although this was part of the team's strategy to appease Williams at all costs, it almost certainly cost it the key trade piece in a Howard deal. If not for that trade, the Nets likely could have had a Howard deal lined up on draft day to be executed July 11.

    As for Howard, just about all of his leverage has vanished. He gave Orlando a one-team list of destinations, and now it's virtually impossible for him to get there, at least until midseason when Brook Lopez is trade-eligible again and the bizarre base-year compensation rules governing this deal go away. Additionally, there is no credible threat of Howard bolting to Brooklyn as a free agent.

    The next step is Howard's. He can give a wink and a nod to one of the other contenders for his services -- Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles or Dallas -- and set the wheels in motion for a trade, or he can (gasp!) tell Orlando he is staying. It appears unlikely he'll be able to wait until January for a Brooklyn deal, given the Magic's wishes to end this thing quickly.

    And before you think it, sorry -- nobody is trading for Howard just to flip him to New Jersey in February.

    • Minnesota and Portland continue to engage in a fascinating game of chicken regarding Nicolas Batum, highlighted by the fact that the Timberwolves are promising money they don't necessarily have to free agents.

    Minnesota allegedly has a four-year, $45 million deal in place with Batum but hasn't signed an offer sheet yet, apparently trying to goad the Blazers into a sign-and-trade to remove the threat of Portland matching. So far, the Blazers haven't budged.

    A secondary highlight is all the money Minnesota has promised to other free agents. The Timberwolves, can generate a maximum of $12.3 million in cap room. To do so, they have to cut the partially guaranteed contracts of Brad Miller and Martell Webster and use the amnesty tag on Darko Milicic.

    The problem is that they've promised much more than that: a deal for Batum starting a little more than $10 million, another $5.2 million for Brandon Roy, plus whatever they've promised Russian guard Alexey Shved. That's to say nothing of their dalliances with Greg Stiemsma and a couple of other free agents.

    All told, the Timberwolves need to cut at least $5 million and likely more; I haven't seen a dollar figure on their agreement with Shved, but we can assume it's for much more than the minimum.

    This problem goes away if the Blazers match Batum's offer sheet, but the Timberwolves aren't going into this hoping Portland will match. If not, Minnesota likely can clear $4 million by trading Luke Ridnour and another $2 million by paying somebody to take Wayne Ellington, so it's still workable. But it's all getting very complicated.

    • Count me in among those who think the Knicks will match Toronto's ridiculous offer sheet for Landry Fields. New York doesn't care about salary. The Knicks have proved this, and they have just a three-year window with the Anthony-Stoudemire-Chandler group before they'll need to blow it up anyway. Fields' deal fits perfectly on that timeline, as do the arrangements for Kidd and Marcus Camby.

    Besides, New York needs somebody to start at the 2 this season while it waits for Iman Shumpert to return from his late-April ACL injury. If the Knicks don't keep Fields, they need to use either Kidd or some minimum contract guy as their starting shooting guard. It will be bloody expensive, but New York has shown time and again that cost isn't going to stop it from getting a player.
    I'm a Beast

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

      i'm trying my best not to think about this trade because the more i think/read the more pissed i become.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

        Originally posted by xtacy View Post
        i'm trying my best not to think about this trade because the more i think/read the more pissed i become.
        think of it as a augustin/mahinmi trade for collison/jones. imo backup center has been our biggest need for a while now, and we finally got him so i don't get why everyone is all mad, probably cuz most don't even know who mahinmi is. i am a collison supporter and would probably be a little mad if we didn't end up getting augustin.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

            Think of the offseason as a collective. Don't judge any individual move. We're a 50-win team, we don't make trades for the immediate gratification of sportswriters.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

              Originally posted by PaulGeorge View Post
              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...cers-mavs-deal


              Collison, meanwhile, offers an immediate upgrade on Jason Kidd at the point, ...
              I know Kidd is as old as dirt but does anyone else think this is... uh... a bit of a stretch?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                Think of the offseason as a collective. Don't judge any individual move. We're a 50-win team, we don't make trades for the immediate gratification of sportswriters.
                I don't want to sound to contrarian here but I have to ask, is that the goal? I know I'm about to be lectured by all of the "you can't build a dream team in a season" type of people and I know someone is going to explain to me how I need to be happy with the progress we made last season as well.

                I get all of that.

                But till proven otherwise we have to beat the Miami Heat.

                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.

                Sorry Rexnom not aiming this at you btw, I'm Just using this as a Jump off point.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                  Originally posted by Peck View Post
                  I don't want to sound to contrarian here but I have to ask, is that the goal? I know I'm about to be lectured by all of the "you can't build a dream team in a season" type of people and I know someone is going to explain to me how I need to be happy with the progress we made last season as well.

                  I get all of that.

                  But till proven otherwise we have to beat the Miami Heat.

                  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.

                  Sorry Rexnom not aiming this at you btw, I'm Just using this as a Jump off point.
                  The goal is a championship, of course (I don't follow the "just contend" conspiracy theory).

                  I think that our front office thinks that this starting five can win a championship. I think they have a lot of faith in the abilities of Roy, Paul, and George (whether that is justified or not is up for debate).

                  I think this offseason has been about keeping our core five together and finding complementary pieces while maintaining future financial flexibility. They're hoping that giving these guys more time to gel, a training camp and complimentary pieces will lead to improvement. I think we're right on track in this regard.

                  The trade/FA signings were about shuffling around our bench to make the pieces fit a bit better with our core. I think we would have preferred to have Chris Kaman and OJ Mayo as well but those guys clearly wanted more money than we wanted or should have given them.

                  A lot rests on the shoulders of Paul, Roy, and George improving. If they don't, we will reassess this strategy.

                  Personally: I'm all for this strategy. I just love the clarity of vision, the long-term thinking, the focus. It's a great way to build a championship contender without hitting the draft lottery jackpot. We're already a 50-win team. I'd be surprised if we don't hit 54 next season (that's less than 2 additional wins, pro-rated). Difficult not to call a 54+ win team a contender.
                  Last edited by rexnom; 07-13-2012, 04:51 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                    Originally posted by Peck View Post
                    I don't want to sound to contrarian here but I have to ask, is that the goal? I know I'm about to be lectured by all of the "you can't build a dream team in a season" type of people and I know someone is going to explain to me how I need to be happy with the progress we made last season as well.

                    I get all of that.

                    But till proven otherwise we have to beat the Miami Heat.

                    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.

                    Sorry Rexnom not aiming this at you btw, I'm Just using this as a Jump off point.
                    I think Kstat said it best in another thread - as Plan B's go this wasn't bad.

                    Of course us fans would prefer a championship move, and we kind of talked ourselves into expecting a big move didn't we, but in reality such moves mostly involve forces outside the Pacers' control. For example, Deron having a shortlist of only 2 teams that he would consider. Dwight Howard having an even shorter list of just one team that he'd re-sign with. Nash choosing LA to stay close to his kids.

                    The argument really is over the FO's willingness to gamble on such a big move, isn't it. On the one hand, it's difficult to blame the Pacers for a conservative approach, knowing that the odds of a big move paying off are so low. For example, if we had gone after Eric Gordon in a big way, we'd still have dumped DC and Dahntay to get cap space, but we'd be waiting on NOH right now, instead of signing Augustin, Green, and Mahinmi to fill roster holes. The timing is crucial because once Hibbert and Hill's new deals kick in, the cap space disappears. And the most likely end game is still NOH matching, leaving us with nothing to show.

                    On the other side of the spectrum, Morey in Houston is showing us the kind of moves a GM desperate for a superstar would pull. Of the top minutes guys in Houston's rotation last season (and they were a .500 team), 8 out of 11 have now been traded for draft picks, waived for cap space, or allowed to leave as FAs. All of these moves are aimed at trading for Dwight Howard, who even then might end up as a one year rental only. It's like staking your rent money on the longshot in a horse race. Sure the payoff is spectacular if you win, but what happens in the 99% likely event that you don't?

                    I get your point though, it's difficult to see this team getting past the 2nd round in its current configuration. Arguably though, "treading water" in terms of roster talent and maintaining future flexibility is probably the best we can do until a championship move does turn up. I think if it were someone rather than Walsh who is in charge (say, KP by his lonesome), Pacer fans would be more inclined to give the FO the benefit of the doubt that we're setting up for future moves rather than settling in for long term mediocrity. As it is, I guess we can only be patient.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                      http://www.nba.com/video/teams/pacer...e51f4v-2142300

                      This is the last part of the Miles Plumlee presser. Listen to Donnie and KP talk about their plan--it is painfully obvious how they planned on building this team. Smoke-screens notwithstanding, there's real vision here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                        While it may not look as sexy as what we are expecting, I think we made improvements for the better. Will the current cast achieve higher than the last season's cast? I'll say who knows.

                        I think we are forgetting what last season's team has achieved. We thought they'll be just chasing for the 6th to 8th spot with how they were assembled. Nobody thought they'll be 3rd in the East, 5th best record in the league. Holding their own against the eventual champions.

                        So far, our starting 5 was retained. Our bench improved in terms of offensive weapons and athleticism. I won't be surprised if the Pacers as of now will be fighting for #1 in the East.

                        For me, that trade was made for the following reasons (just my theory):

                        - Trying to go taller and more athletic in the frontcourt. We know our Pfs and Cs off the bench are small.
                        - They're going to give more time to the other guys (Lance, Green, probably OJ too). It's time for the Pacers to reap the rewards in investing for Lance, and Green will be a legitimate backup SF that will provide better offense.
                        - Giving the best situation for our good guys (DC and DJones) while getting the best asset they can get.
                        - Just planning for future moves. We have a reputable FO. Let's trust what they'll do.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                          Originally posted by Peck View Post
                          I don't want to sound to contrarian here but I have to ask, is that the goal? I know I'm about to be lectured by all of the "you can't build a dream team in a season" type of people and I know someone is going to explain to me how I need to be happy with the progress we made last season as well.

                          I get all of that.

                          But till proven otherwise we have to beat the Miami Heat.

                          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.

                          Sorry Rexnom not aiming this at you btw, I'm Just using this as a Jump off point.
                          I certainly agree with you but I saw more than one post here say that "If Jeff Foster had just been healthy, we would have beaten the Heat."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                            Originally posted by Peck View Post
                            I don't want to sound to contrarian here but I have to ask, is that the goal? I know I'm about to be lectured by all of the "you can't build a dream team in a season" type of people and I know someone is going to explain to me how I need to be happy with the progress we made last season as well.

                            I get all of that.

                            But till proven otherwise we have to beat the Miami Heat.

                            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.

                            Sorry Rexnom not aiming this at you btw, I'm Just using this as a Jump off point.
                            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
                            Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-13-2012, 08:16 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Insider: "Pacers-Mavs Deal: Who won?" (need posted plz)

                              Originally posted by MrHale View Post
                              think of it as a augustin/mahinmi trade for collison/jones. imo backup center has been our biggest need for a while now, and we finally got him so i don't get why everyone is all mad, probably cuz most don't even know who mahinmi is. i am a collison supporter and would probably be a little mad if we didn't end up getting augustin.
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X