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

Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?id...port=nba&ft=ss



    The NBA's Orlando predraft camp is behind us, and individual team workouts begin on Tuesday.
    At this point very little is set in stone. Rumors (many of them contradictory) were flying fast and furious in Orlando and will continue until the June 28 draft.
    Teams got a glimpse of the top prospects on the last day of the predraft camp. Workouts, interviews and the Reebok Eurocamp will alter dramatically the face of the draft. And we expect a few underclassmen to pull out. In fact, Croatian big man Ante Tomic started the process on Sunday by withdrawing because of a dispute with his Croatian team.
    Here's our latest take, after talking to numerous NBA team sources, about how the draft might play out.
    You can also take a look at our updated Top 100 list of the best prospects in the draft.

    The skinny: Blazers GM Kevin Pritchard told me in Orlando he hasn't made up his mind yet. Both Oden and Kevin Durant will visit to meet the staff and go through a battery of interviews. But unless Oden raises a red flag somehow, I believe he's the man.

    The skinny: Sonics president Lenny Wilkens says he isn't trading the pick. But the same can't be said for the rest of the roster if Durant's the pick. Expect the team to rebuild around Durant.
    By the way, after talking to Durant on Thursday, I think it's safe to say that if Portland passes on him, he'll try to drop 50 on the Blazers in their first meeting.

    The skinny: In our last mock draft we posited that the Hawks essentially had to take point guard Mike Conley.
    Well, the intel out of Orlando is that they are leaning toward the athletic Wright and will sort out the point guard situation with the No. 11 pick.
    Wright has one of the biggest risk/reward factors of anyone in the draft. And I'm just not sure how well he fits on a team filled with such similar players as Josh Smith and Marvin Williams.

    The skinny: With Horford measuring out in Orlando at an impressive 6-foot-9¾ with a 7-foot-3 wingspan, any concerns that he might be too small to play the 4 are gone.
    This move gives the Grizz some toughness up front and allows them to either move Pau Gasol back to the 5 or trade him this summer.
    Corey Brewer and Mike Conley are also possibilities here.

    The skinny: This is a tough call since the future of the Celtics is so murky. Yi has the most upside at this point but also carries a significant risk that Celts boss Danny Ainge might not want to bear. And with Paul Pierce stumping for immediate help, it might be an unpopular pick.
    I wouldn't be surprised if the Celtics traded the pick -- the Warriors and Bulls would like to move up here and grab Yi.
    If the Celtics go with Corey Brewer instead, it might mean the end of the Paul Pierce era in Boston.

    The skinny: The Bucks likely will decide between Conley and Julian Wright here. With Mo Williams hitting free agency, Conley's a good pick and a better pure point guard prospect in the long run.
    Wright would fill a void at small forward and give the Bucks an athletic facilitator in their frontcourt.
    The skinny: The Timberwolves' biggest need is in the frontcourt. However, Brewer's too good to let fall any further. The Wolves could play him at the 2 and 3 and get an immediate defensive boost.
    Joakim Noah, Julian Wright and Spencer Hawes are also possibilities here.

    The skinny: The Bobcats likely will go after free agent Rashard Lewis to handle their scoring woes. They also need to improve their rebounding, which is where Noah comes in. Bernie Bickerstaff and Michael Jordan will be fans of his energy and the intensity he brings to the game.
    If they Bobcats put him with Emeka Okafor, Sean May and Primoz Brezec, they would have a number of different looks they could give opponents on their frontline.
    Besides, Noah projects as one of the most marketable guys in the draft and the Bobcats are still searching for players like that.

    The skinny: The Bulls desperately need low-post scoring, and Hawes might be the most offensively-gifted low-post player in the draft.
    The team also likes Julian Wright, though he isn't nearly the best fit here.
    The Bulls really want Yi, however, so don't be surprised if they try to move up a few spots in the draft to get him.
    This pick could also be a target for the Blazers. They'd love to get their hands on Jeff Green or Julian Wright. The Bulls could trade this pick and P.J. Brown (in a sign-and-trade) for Zach Randolph.

    The skinny: With Ron Artest likely packing for a new destination this summer, they'll want to replace his versatility on the defensive end. Wright is not the scorer that Artest is, but he's a better facilitator.
    That would be a welcome change for Mike Bibby and Kevin Martin, who both thought Artest controlled the offense too much.

    The skinny: If the Hawks go big with pick No. 3, they have to go point guard here ... right? After the Hawks passed on point guards Chris Paul, Deron Williams and Rajon Rondo in the last two drafts, will Crittenton be able to fill those shoes? He's big, athletic and he can shoot the ball, but he lacks ideal quickness and experience.

    The skinny: The Sixers really need a power forward, but at this point, Green is clearly the best player left on the board. He's a much better prospect than the small forward the Sixers drafted last year, Rodney Carney. He also could play a little 4 in a small-ball-type lineup.
    Green, like Andre Iguodala, has some serious point forward skills and would provide more glue to a team that looked like it was starting to come together in the second half of the season.
    The skinny: With Desmond Mason hitting free agency, the Hornets will look for a swingman to play alongside Peja Stojakovic, who they hope can return to health. Brewer is the ideal fit, but if he's gone I expect they'll try to decide between Thornton and Nick Young.
    Thornton is the more NBA ready of the two, though it appears Young might be a better fit.

    The skinny: With Shaun Livingston's future up in the air, the Clippers need to think about adding another point guard. Sam Cassell can't run the show forever, and Law would be a good replacement.
    Like Cassell, he's a scoring guard who is fearless at the end of games. He should be able to step in and contribute immediately.

    The skinny: Many NBA scouts raised their eyebrows when I listed Stuckey this high, but I still think he'll be the pick for Detroit. He just seems like the type of player Detroit likes and he's an excellent fit.
    Stuckey is a Randy Foye-type combo guard who can play some point but really excels by putting the ball on the floor and getting to the basket. He would be a big upgrade over Flip Murray.
    Nick Young and Thaddeus Young also are possibilities here.

    The skinny: Small forward isn't a huge need for Washington, but Young has too much talent and upside to pass on at this point. Washington fans would just have to be a little patient with him.
    The Wizards also like Brazil's Tiago Splitter, but they made a similar pick last year in Olexsiy Pecherov.

    The skinny: The Nets desperately need some interior defense and Williams is the best shot-blocker in the draft.
    Off-court problems got him kicked off the team at Boston College, but at this point in the draft the reward starts to exceed the risk.

    The skinny: Watch the Warriors closely. They are very high on Yi Jianlian and will try to move up in the draft.
    If they can't, Smith is the perfect type of player for Nellie. He is tall and athletic, gets up and down the floor and can score from just about anywhere on the floor. He also plays with great energy. He could be a real sleeper in the draft.

    The skinny: Young is a steal if he slips this far in the draft. He could go as high as No. 8 to Charlotte or No. 13 to New Orleans.
    He doesn't fit a need, but it's tough to see the Lakers passing on the local Laker fanatic if he lasts this long. And his shooting ability and athleticism make him a valuable asset.
    Don't be surprised if this pick gets moved as part of a trade to bring in another star for Kobe.
    If the Pacers were to send Jermaine O'Neal to L.A., for example, you can bet they'd want to grab a shooter like Young.

    The skinny: The Heat are hurting at the point. Jason Williams is coming up on a contract year and the Heat prefer to play Dwyane Wade at the 2.
    Pruitt is a combo guard who has great size for the point, excellent athleticism and a beautiful stroke on his jumper.
    However, the Heat are also a likely candidate to trade their pick.

    The skinny: Sixers GM Billy King loves Duke players, and McRoberts has a lot more talent than his box scores at Duke suggest. He's tall, athletic and very skilled, but he played most of his career out of position at Duke.
    He's not a go-to type player, but he should be a better, more athletic version of Luke Walton.

    The skinny: The Bobcats would fill their need at 2-guard with one of the more underrated players in the draft. Almond has great size for the position and might be the best long-range shooter in the draft.
    The Bobcats thought they got outside shooting when they drafted Adam Morrison last year, but Almond is a much better shooter.
    This pick is another one that looks like it might be for sale.

    The skinny: Cook has great upside, but he's not ready. Right now he's a good shooter and athlete, but he doesn't have much of an in-between game.
    But the Knicks are looking for perimeter shooting and Cook might just have too much talent to pass up here.

    The skinny: I wouldn't be surprised to see the Suns try to package this pick along with No. 29 to move up a few spots in the draft or to facilitate a trade to get rid of Marcus Banks or Boris Diaw.
    If they do keep it, I suspect they'll go international so that they can keep the player in Europe and off the payroll.
    Splitter has enough talent to go a few spots higher, but he won't be able to get out of his contract until 2008.

    The skinny: The Jazz want to add a shooter who can play the 2 and 3 and play some defense.
    Byars is a bit of a sleeper. He really didn't come on strong at Vanderbilt until his senior season.
    Italy's Marco Belinelli and Rice's Morris Almond are also possibilities here.

    The skinny: Davis has amazing skills for a big guy -- the problem is that he's just so big. If he can keep his weight down, he could end up being a steal this late. But that's a big if. Workouts will be very important for him.

    The skinny: If the Pistons go with a guard with pick No. 15, you can expect them to add a big man to balance things out in the frontcourt.
    Hardin has all the physical tools to be an excellent pro, but is still a long way from contributing. Look for the Pistons to put him on the same two-year development plan that's worked so far for Amir Johnson.

    The skinny: As long as Tim Duncan is around to hold down the middle, the Spurs could use some improvement in their shooting in the backcourt.
    Belinelli has one of the best pure strokes in the draft. He also comes with great experience in the Euroleague and should be able to step in and help right away.

    The skinny: Suns likely will try to trade this pick, but if they keep it, they'll likely go international.
    Fernandez had a breakout season in Spain this year. He's an excellent athlete with a good shooting stroke and the ability to play some point. His lack of strength and durability are the only things keeping his stock this low at the moment.

    The skinny: The likelihood of the Sixers' keeping all three picks is slim … but if they do, they'll probably take an international player they can stash overseas.
    Gasol, the brother of Grizzlies forward Pau Gasol, made huge strides in Spain this year and could be a decent backup center down the road.

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.
    Last edited by Y2J; 06-04-2007, 06:14 PM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

    If Conley is available at the #5 spot......I would dump all this Lakers/Pacers cr@p and offer up JONeal to the Celtics for Ratiff/Green/#5 pick ( Conley ).
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      If Conley is available at the #5 spot......I would dump all this Lakers/Pacers cr@p and offer up JONeal to the Celtics for Ratiff/Green/#5 pick ( Conley ).
      I'm glad that you are not the G.M. then...I couldn't disagree with you more.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

        I'd trade JO for Conley and Bynum.
        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

          Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
          I'm glad that you are not the G.M. then...I couldn't disagree with you more.
          IMHO.....I would much rather have Conley and Green then have Bynum and whoever we get at the 19th spot.

          Keep in mind...this is based off of the assumption that all we get for JONeal is Kwame+Bynum+19th pick. I'm not entirely optimistic that we can somehow get Odom out of any Laker deal.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            If Conley is available at the #5 spot......I would dump all this Lakers/Pacers cr@p and offer up JONeal to the Celtics for Ratiff/Green/#5 pick ( Conley ).
            The Lakers would be giving up a proven vet and potential all-star when healthy in Odom to replace JO at PF, a 19 year old 7'0 center in Bynum who has the potential to be a franchise type of center, and 19th pick in a pretty deep draft that I think will even out after the 1st 3-4 picks, where we can draft a young SG to round out the backcourt with Tinsley to give us a solid starting 5 and solid depth, without having anyone out of position. OR we could still take a PG to replace Jamaal (who may have worn out his welcome)


            With the Celtics, you get an old expiring in Ratliff who might be able to still block a shot or two. A young GG who like Bynum, has the potential to be a franchise player, but at the SG position, and you get the #5 and use it on Conley (whom I like). We have a nice young.. yet unproven backcourt and I guess we bank on an undersized Ike to give us an inside presence? So we have a nice looking young core with not much experience in the backcourt. Granger, and then a frontcourt filled with question marks. Maybe 3-4 years down the road it will all come together.

            I don't mind trading with the Celtics, but if we're going into what I think would be full rebuilding mode with young projects and trading an all-star in JO within the easten conference to add to the all-star they already have in Pierce, and a young potential big man all star in Jefferson, then I think you have to get more then Ratliff/Green/Conley.

            I make the Celtics add either Rondo or Delonte West to the deal and maybe try to get a Perkins or Gomes as well, then I take the 5th pick and draft the a big who can score.


            Thanks for the mock info Y2J, it's nice to see different mocks of whom teams might be leaning towards with a little info as to why, instead of just listing names, and comparing to other players already in the league.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              IMHO.....I would much rather have Conley and Green then have Bynum and whoever we get at the 19th spot.

              Keep in mind...this is based off of the assumption that all we get for JONeal is Kwame+Bynum+19th pick. I'm not entirely optimistic that we can somehow get Odom out of any Laker deal.

              Ahh, I didn't see your assumption, but I don't think the Laker deal happens without both Odom and Bynum. I can't see Bird being that stupid, but who knows... I might have my blinders on

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                The Lakers are gonna give up Odom and Bynum they have a gun on there head i think we all know that.
                "To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." - Anatole France

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                  Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                  Ahh, I didn't see your assumption, but I don't think the Laker deal happens without both Odom and Bynum. I can't see Bird being that stupid, but who knows... I might have my blinders on
                  I believe I read somewhere (maybe from the press conference) that JO'b will have more of a say in what kind of players the team goes after. This makes me somewhat more optimistic of the summer, regardless of what happens with the JO/Lakers drama.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                    Originally posted by D23 View Post
                    I believe I read somewhere (maybe from the press conference) that JO'b will have more of a say in what kind of players the team goes after. This makes me somewhat more optimistic of the summer, regardless of what happens with the JO/Lakers drama.
                    Yeah I heard that as well, and I think that is definitely a good thing. I dunno if JOb is the best at talent scouting either, but at least he and Bird sound like they're on the same page, which I never felt was the case with Carlisle.

                    I don't think Bird has made the worse moves. Yeah the GS deal was pretty iffy, but I'll continue to give it time, and if you look at the players Bird has brought in, you can see what he was trying to do, but Carlisle wasn't the right coach for it. Bird just brought in the guys he liked, but didn't take into effect the style and type of coach Carlisle was.

                    Of course Rick "tried" to make it work, but he has to coach the way he knows how, and do what has been successful for him. You can't bring in an uptempo and pick n roll type in Sarunas, who is not a very good defender, to come in a play for a slow it down, throw in the post, or have a shooter come off screens type of offense and a grind it out one on one type of defense.

                    That's why Quis was also not effective early. He was use to pushing the ball and getting it in the open so he could create. Carlisle's offense was slower, but after the GS trade, he allowed Quis to create and saw what he could do.

                    Everyone blames Bird for the moves that he has made with the players, like bring Al back then trade him away not even halfway into the season. When the worse move was probably keeping Carlisle a year too long.

                    It would have been nice to see what JOb could have done with the likes of Jack, Al and Runi.

                    That won't happen, but I'm optimistic to have a front office and the coaching staff on the same page one again, and I'm excited to see the results of that.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      IMHO.....I would much rather have Conley and Green then have Bynum and whoever we get at the 19th spot.

                      Keep in mind...this is based off of the assumption that all we get for JONeal is Kwame+Bynum+19th pick. I'm not entirely optimistic that we can somehow get Odom out of any Laker deal.
                      I'm "nearly certain" that if we would give up JO to the Lakers, we would get whoever the hell we wanted not named Kobe, plus other players to even the salaries.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                        Because Conley will do so well in our new 3-pt offense...

                        Yes there really is a worse shooter than Jamaal Tinsley, he is from Indiana. His name is...

                        Mike Conley Jr.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                          Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                          Ahh, I didn't see your assumption, but I don't think the Laker deal happens without both Odom and Bynum. I can't see Bird being that stupid, but who knows... I might have my blinders on
                          NP.......I'm a "worst-case scenarios" type of guy...when it comes to the recent GSW/Indy trade....sorry to sound so negative...but I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

                          I'm preparing for "Kwame+19+Bynum", hoping for "Odom+Kwame+Kwame+19" but expecting "Odom+Bynum".
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                            I'm "nearly certain" that if we would give up JO to the Lakers, we would get whoever the hell we wanted not named Kobe, plus other players to even the salaries.
                            To play Devil's Advocate...or in the NBA world.....Stern's Advocate.....the only reason why I don't think that we will end up with a "full buffet" and choose whoever we want outside of Kobe is that I doubt that a Laker combo of Kobe+JONeal ( with no Odom or Bynum ) can win a championship...much less do any better then they did this last season.

                            It simply wouldn't be in their best interest to trade all of their "Trading Assets" away to get a player like JONeal.....cuz honestly....although JONeal is a very good player.....I don't think that he is good enough to make it to the next level for the Lakers.

                            At least relating to this topic about the draft.....IF we were in the enviable position of having either a Odom+Bynum+19th pick or a Ratliff+5th Pick+Green ( with or without Delonte ) trade on the table....it would be difficult for me to choose which is better. But if its Kwame+Bynum+19th pick deal from the Lakers....then its a no-brainer for me...I would go for the Celtics deal.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft, Version 3.0: Picks 1-30

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              To play Devil's Advocate...or in the NBA world.....Stern's Advocate.....the only reason why I don't think that we will end up with a "full buffet" and choose whoever we want outside of Kobe is that I doubt that a Laker combo of Kobe+JONeal ( with no Odom or Bynum ) can win a championship...much less do any better then they did this last season.

                              It simply wouldn't be in their best interest to trade all of their "Trading Assets" away to get a player like JONeal.....cuz honestly....although JONeal is a very good player.....I don't think that he is good enough to make it to the next level for the Lakers.

                              At least relating to this topic about the draft.....IF we were in the enviable position of having either a Odom+Bynum+19th pick or a Ratliff+5th Pick+Green ( with or without Delonte ) trade on the table....it would be difficult for me to choose which is better. But if its Kwame+Bynum+19th pick deal from the Lakers....then its a no-brainer for me...I would go for the Celtics deal.
                              the lakers would have a few other options if they did the bynum, odom, #19... they could either look to fill their PG or the SF with another strong option. they could go after rashard, richard jefferson, gerald wallace using kwame, S&T walton, future picks, etc... they could also trade those pieces for a more competent PG and sign someone like Grant Hill to play a Horry-esque role off the bench (he can't play back-to-back-to-back anymore but is still quite talented) for the MLE.

                              i think the lakers have more options than fans might let on.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X