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

Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

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

  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

    If Combo guard means they can play both well, I'm all for it, but it never does. Mal is right and this draft is littered with guys like that. Its why I keep coming back to Augustine despite his size.

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

      Originally posted by Speed View Post
      If Combo guard means they can play both well, I'm all for it, but it never does. Mal is right and this draft is littered with guys like that. Its why I keep coming back to Augustine despite his size.
      What's the difference between a combo guard and a scoring PG who's between 6'2" and 6'4"? Gilbert Arenas was considered a combo guard coming out of college. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that a guy like Chauncey Billups was also. Really, any guard with decent but not ideal height gets labeled a combo guard coming out. Some guys learn to play PG and that's how we think of them, but they're not "pure" PG's like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, etc. I'd bet that you could find some pundits who referred to Deron Williams as a combo guard because he mainly played off the ball in college.
      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

      - Salman Rushdie

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

        Why is moving Dunleavy a requirment to picking a SG/Combo-Guard like Wesbrook in the upcoming draft?
        Because a top 15 pick needs more than 8 minutes in his main role. JOB is still coach and if Mike is here he's the SG. The only reason you take W'brook with Mike here is because you plan to move him during the year or at the latest prior to the next draft.

        That's me, a guy who doesn't see W'brook as a PG.

        I also think you 100% cash out on Dun now while he's at the top of his game. He's redundent, he's NOT a defensive SG solution and Danny just showed that he's starting to feel comfortable as the #1 scoring option, including from 3.

        So Dun becomes a 3-4 assist extra Danny with little ability to defend the SG spot? How's that help this situation?

        OTOH he currently has value, not every team is sitting with a 3pt ace young star at SF. Not every team is riddled with defensive issues. Some of them could use A vet with lots of offensive punch.

        Dunleavy is for a team that is PLAYOFF READY, and not one that counts on him as the guy leading the team into the playoffs (obviously, see GS/IND recent years). The Pacers aren't that team, they are SUPPOSED TO BE REBUILDING.

        I'd move Jeff too except that he does do something you badly need which is play smart big man defense and get rebounds, plus it comes at a lower cost.


        I'm not anti-moving JO. I really like what JO can be, but I would also move him and Troy if possible. All 3 of those guys, plus Tins, are players that ultimately don't make sense if you are really rebuilding.

        Look, here's the hard fact on it, Mike looks great NOW. But consider the times when we wouldn't have traded JO or Tins and look where that ended up.

        As much as Mike improved his 3pt shot, he still didn't really improve any other aspect of his game. Frankly when you look at his per36 at Basketball-Reference I don't think his MIP case looks all that strong. OREB is down, assists are average for him (3.5 per36), everything is about the same otherwise.

        So if the perception on him is that he had this big improvement and is now earning his deal and perhaps some outsiders think this the first step to bigger things, then you deal him before people find out this is all you get.

        I wish Troy, JO and Tins had that outside view but they don't. On Tins I think you just punt for team chemistry sake because the cost won't be nearly as high as "eating" the Troy or JO deals on a bad trade.


        When I hear "combo guard" I think of a shooting guard with a body of a point guard and who has at least Kofi convinced he has even a small chance of learning to be a point guard some day through coaching.
        fixed

        Sorry Kofi, but I've made the point all year that UCLA put Collison, not Westbrook, into the PG role nearly all the time. If Westbrook is truly an NBA PG just waiting for some coaching then wasn't this the year to see that? Why wouldn't UCLA just go ahead and make that happen and let Collison come off the bench or flank off to the combo spot himself most of the time?


        Westbrook as the DEFENSIVE SG with a knack for loose balls/rebounds and at least the Fred Jones ability to drive to the rim for a score is fine with me. Move Dun for another pick (say PORT if possible) and let Westbrook see as much time as possible right away. Maybe he goes behind Quis or Rush or something to start, but ultimately you are placing him into this system.

        Also you could draft Love with an eye toward ultimately moving JO/Troy, and this should be a goal in a rebuild, then deal Mike to get a guy like Rush as your defensive SG.

        Maybe the awful to think about JO for Marbury fills the PG spot next year and then you address that issue. Maybe you trade Shawne for Lowry.

        PG - Marbury, Lowry, Diener
        SG - Quis, B Rush
        SF - Danny
        PF - Troy, Love
        C - Foster, Troy

        Then Marbury goes and either Lowry is working out or you look to make a move for that solution. By then Troy's deal is also movable. Draft a big, maybe sign a PG or SG and you have a ton of young talent with just a few vets sprinkled in, Danny being one of them by then.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-15-2008, 01:16 PM.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

          One thing again on Love and potential. The dude is a FRESHMAN. Everyone is willing to see improvement in all these other guys, but why not Love?

          Because he already plays a smart game? Sure, but since when was there a cap on that. To me learning and game smarts are skills just like jumping. When Love learns to pull the chair on guys in the post, learns even slicker ways to lock guys out on rebounds, how to draw fouls on offense, reading potential charge situations ala JO, etc he'll be even better.

          To me he's proven that he understands the game and can learn the game just as much as Rose proved he could score and dribble or Beasley proved he could go to either hand.

          Unlike some of these guys with physical abilites that have yet to be properly applied, Love has shown he can apply some of his NBA caliber skills to the game. You aren't crossing your fingers that he can translate his IQ test and SAT scores to the game like you are hoping a guy with a great vert and size can via "potential".

          He's already made good on some of his potential. He's not the only one, but I'm just saying that why hope that Thabeet can learn stuff he's yet to learn when Love has already proven that he can learn and improve at a young age?

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
            What's the difference between a combo guard and a scoring PG who's between 6'2" and 6'4"? Gilbert Arenas was considered a combo guard coming out of college. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that a guy like Chauncey Billups was also. Really, any guard with decent but not ideal height gets labeled a combo guard coming out. Some guys learn to play PG and that's how we think of them, but they're not "pure" PG's like Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, etc. I'd bet that you could find some pundits who referred to Deron Williams as a combo guard because he mainly played off the ball in college.
            I see PG as old school/make guys around you better. Deron is a PG. AI and Arenas aren't. They do transcend their size cuz they can score and bunches, but they are much better when coupled with another guard who is a facilitator (Eric Snow in Phillie with AI.)

            I don't consider AI or Arenas as combo guards or a Point Guard by any stretch just because they are that size, they are undersized scorers.

            If you like Mayo or Eric Gordan at the next level, I think you like there scoring ability, regardless. I don't think you go into it and think they can run a team. Maybe Foye is the same way, we'll see.

            Chauncey is the main exception, but struggled mightily in the early going in his career until he made himself a true point guard, which is a complete mindset change from how these guys are the star of each of there respective teams their entire life. My point is, its really really hard to become a true Point Guard.

            Things you have to think about wit these combo guards, can they guard either position effectively on most nights? Can they lead a fast break or run the offense, unselfishly, putting their own scoring aside for the good of the team. Or conversely, can they get their shot off over bigger players at the 2 guard spot.

            I'm dating myself, but Shaun Respert was like college player of the year, but he was a college shooting guard who couldn't play big enough to play shooting guard at the NBA level and in no way would be confused with a point guard.

            Is Ben Gordan a combo guard or just a small scoring/shooting guard.

            I guess my whole point (pun intended) is that true Point Guards are really rare and the term Combo guard means nothing to me, if part of the combo is not a point guard who can run a team and sacrifice his glory for his teammates.

            I'd rather have a Jose Claderon vs a Marcus Banks, just for a tangible example.

            Fred Jones was about as far away from a Point Guard as you can get, I rather not revisit that whole deal again.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              One thing again on Love and potential. The dude is a FRESHMAN. Everyone is willing to see improvement in all these other guys, but why not Love?

              Because he already plays a smart game? Sure, but since when was there a cap on that. To me learning and game smarts are skills just like jumping. When Love learns to pull the chair on guys in the post, learns even slicker ways to lock guys out on rebounds, how to draw fouls on offense, reading potential charge situations ala JO, etc he'll be even better.

              To me he's proven that he understands the game and can learn the game just as much as Rose proved he could score and dribble or Beasley proved he could go to either hand.

              Unlike some of these guys with physical abilites that have yet to be properly applied, Love has shown he can apply some of his NBA caliber skills to the game. You aren't crossing your fingers that he can translate his IQ test and SAT scores to the game like you are hoping a guy with a great vert and size can via "potential".

              He's already made good on some of his potential. He's not the only one, but I'm just saying that why hope that Thabeet can learn stuff he's yet to learn when Love has already proven that he can learn and improve at a young age?
              My biggest fear is Bird has already fallen in love with Love and will be duped to moving up to get him. I think his ceiling is lower for the reasons you state. He is smart, but he's not physically going to get any bigger, at least height wise.

              I suppose maybe he can really really bulk up and be a Boozer/Karl Malone type body, but I worry he's going to be a step slow and blocked shot waiting to happen, while guys shoot over and around him all day. He has the body to look like he may get really fat or really strong. He has tree trunk legs.

              I just don't see him more than a back up power forward playing 18 minutes a night, in his prime. And absolutely its too early to say that, but thats what we are looking at.

              Maybe I'm wrong, and smart is valuable at the next level, but can you see him guarding the other power forwards in the NBA, at all?

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                Is Ben Gordan a combo guard or just a small scoring/shooting guard.

                I guess my whole point (pun intended) is that true Point Guards are really rare and the term Combo guard means nothing to me, if part of the combo is not a point guard who can run a team and sacrifice his glory for his teammates.
                I agree with you for the most part. What the term "combo guard" means to me is "a guy who's too small to play shooting guard, but doesn't have traditional point guard skills."

                It's all a bit pointless as it's nothing more than a label. There aren't 30 highly talented "true" PG's in the world, so not every NBA team can have one. That's why you invent a term like "combo guard" so you can talk about guys like Monta Ellis, Leandro Barbosa, Allen Iverson, Gilbert Arenas, etc.
                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                - Salman Rushdie

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                  Combo guard? Simple explanation in today's basketball climate. It's a two-guard who has enough handle to bring the ball up the court.

                  Players get this label not because they're short, but rather because they can dribble but can't run an offense.

                  Edit: I don't really consider guys like Iverson or Arenas in this area. Those guys, and a few others, are special talents. There's no reason to pigeonhole them into any sort of term. AI is AI. Gil is Gil.
                  Last edited by Kraft; 04-15-2008, 02:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                    Originally posted by Kraft View Post
                    Combo guard? Simple explanation in today's basketball climate. It's a two-guard who has enough handle to bring the ball up the court.

                    Players get this label not because they're short, but rather because they can dribble but can't run an offense.

                    Edit: I don't really consider guys like Iverson or Arenas in this area. Those guys, and a few others, are special talents. There's no reason to pigeonhole them into any sort of term. AI is AI. Gil is Gil.
                    So a combo guard can't be a special talent?

                    Dumars was the best combo guard I can think of. Are you saying that a Combo Guard is a Guard whose best position is the off guard, but he can play the point?

                    Ot is it that the guard is not a scorer, but can facilitate the offense when the point is out?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                      intridcold-

                      Good call on Dumars. He was the guy I thought of too when
                      pondering the quintessential, 'combo' guy.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                        Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                        So a combo guard can't be a special talent?
                        That's not what I'm saying. What I mean is that the term combo guard, nowadays, is used to describe the 99 percent of guards forced to bring the ball up the court because no one else on the team could. And most of those guys aren't real facilitators.

                        Joe Dumars? Certainly a special talent. But there's just not many like him. Whereas, there's all sorts of true swingmen that can play the 2/3. And there's all sorts of forwards that can be effective off the bench at the 3/4 and 4/5. But real multi-dimensional guards? Mostly, my brain hurts watching a lot of the pretenders.

                        And if you look around the country at the college ranks, it just shows how there's a real lack of players who can run an offense. Just look at my alma mater, Purdue. The Boilers, even in a largely successful season, used all sorts of players to bring the ball up the court because they just didn't have a true point.

                        Down the road at IU, Armon Bassett wasn't too much the offense coordinator, either.

                        So when it comes time for the draft, there ends up being a lot of guys that never really developed point guard skills. But since they dribbled the ball up the court in college ...

                        Viola! A combo guard.
                        Last edited by Kraft; 04-15-2008, 03:48 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                          Originally posted by intridcold View Post

                          Dumars was the best combo guard I can think of.
                          The Big O!

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                            Because a top 15 pick needs more than 8 minutes in his main role. JOB is still coach and if Mike is here he's the SG. The only reason you take W'brook with Mike here is because you plan to move him during the year or at the latest prior to the next draft.

                            That's me, a guy who doesn't see W'brook as a PG.

                            I also think you 100% cash out on Dun now while he's at the top of his game. He's redundent, he's NOT a defensive SG solution and Danny just showed that he's starting to feel comfortable as the #1 scoring option, including from 3.

                            So Dun becomes a 3-4 assist extra Danny with little ability to defend the SG spot? How's that help this situation?

                            OTOH he currently has value, not every team is sitting with a 3pt ace young star at SF. Not every team is riddled with defensive issues. Some of them could use A vet with lots of offensive punch.
                            I'm not disagreeing with you that Dunleavy should be traded for the various reasons that you suggest. The problem is that I just don't think that any team is going to pay that much to get a player that is paid Starter $$$ that is best suited to be a 6th Man without giving us back something that we don't want or is somewhat equal in value.

                            I completely agree with you that IF we have the opportunity to move Dunleavy, then we should. If he could be traded where we don't get back a useless player that not only fits some need that we have ( ie, perimeter defender, PG or Defensive Big Man ) but doesn't further erodes our Salary Cap situation, then no problem.......trade Dunleavy. I'm just realistic enough to realize that this ( more then likely ) won't happen. I'm not suggeting that we should keep Dunleavy cuz I like how he plays and how well he fits onto this team, I'm suggesting that we keep him cuz we won't have any choice but to keep him.

                            But for argument's sake, approaching this from the "It's going to take time to get out from under this mess" POV, let's assume that we don't move Dunleavy ( which I don't think is likely ). If Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley and JONeal isn't moved....then what do you do?

                            Draft the best player available?

                            or

                            Draft the best player at a position of need?

                            At the 11th/12th spot, I don't think that any player that we draft at the 11th/12th spot is going to be good enough to immediately warrant playing significant playing time in their Rookie season. The key for me in drafting a player and then developing them is simply trying to find a minimal amount of consistent minutes for him to play. As I mentioned before, if we move Marquis ( which I think has a better chance of happening then moving Dunleavy ) and we don't resign any of our existing FA Guards ( Kareem and Flip ); then I don't see why we wouldn't anything more then a consistent 10-15 minutes as a Backup SG ( which I prefer to start Westbrook as ). This way, he can start getting his feet wet by getting consistent minutes as a Backup SG with the secondary objective of learning how to run the point. As long as that is a consistent set of minutes that he gets...regardless of how we are doing in the game...then I am okay with that in his rookie year. By the 2009-2010 season, we can then re-evaluate where we stand. At that point....assuming that Dunleavy continues his current performance....it maybe easier to move him.

                            BTW....if Kevin Love is available at the 11th / 12th spot...then I agree with you...I would choose him over Westbrook.
                            Last edited by CableKC; 04-15-2008, 04:46 PM.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                              We can't choose Westbrook over Love. Westbrook can at the least be effective as a perimeter defender/penetrator - two things this team sorely lacks.

                              And who knows, kid might develop some decent play-making skills/big scoring skills.

                              Westbrook is a good pick on overall talent/potential

                              I seriously doubt he falls to 13.
                              Last edited by rexnom; 04-15-2008, 05:26 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2008 NBA Draft recruiting center...

                                I think we have to build for when JO isn't here. That could be this summer or when his contract runs out.

                                The argument over perimeter defense vs. interior is insignifant. We just need defense and I might add a post presence outside of JO.


                                I agree with you rexnom that westbrook will probably be gone. He has that upside that makes all the gms drool.

                                I personally would take Love over Westbrook for just two reasons. He has size and is smart. Westbrook has so much more potential but to me the safest pick is Love.

                                The best case scenario for me is to snag Love and Robin Lopez. I doubt it will happen but I can dream right.

                                This would provide future interior D and and offense threat that could spread the floor for our sg/sf.
                                Last edited by Gamble1; 04-15-2008, 05:39 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X