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

2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

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

  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    I mentioned yesterday about the possibility of a trade since the Pacers weren't working out 1st rd picks. Maybe we are on to something.

    I wouldn't have a problem with Blake as a b/u PG, but I don't see the Lakers willing to take Green. Plus, surely the Pacers can draft a player at #23 with more potential for the future than trading the pick for Blake.
    Trading for Blake would not be about the future, it would be more about freeing up salary next summer to either re-sign Granger, or if he is not healthy, to sign another free agent. Blake would be a one year solution at back-up PG.

    According to Draft Express, Deshaun Thomas would be available at 48 and Peyton Silva at 53. Thomas could be a back-up SF who could rotate to PF when teams try to play small ball on us. Silva would be a third string PG with potential of moving to second string after Blake leaves in the summer of 2014.

    Comment


    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

      I'm down to trade out of this draft if we can't land Bullock or Crabbe.

      Comment


      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        The Lakers are dying for some athleticism and youth.
        Gerald Green will be 28 next season.
        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

        -Lance Stephenson

        Comment


        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
          Gerald Green will be 28 next season.
          1st round pick counts as youth to me.

          Comment


          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

            The Lakers are dying for some athleticism and youth.

            Just like they were with McBob, and how did that work out? Lakers FO have more sense than to take on Green. Nothing more than a pipe dream from those wanting to load him off on someone else.

            Comment


            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

              23. Indiana Pacers
              The pick: Isaiah Canaan, Murray State Racers


              There were "high fives" in the Fraschilla draft room when Canaan was available. It is not only an area of need for them, but to get a strong, quick, savvy point guard with NBA range at No. 23 is a steal. He could turn out to be as good as any playmaker in this draft. -- F.F.

              http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft...ks-first-round


              Love Fran he does great work, one of my favorite college guys + he does international. Great dude too.





              Chad Ford's tier column is up no one made tier one or two lol. I am sure some teams disagree with that, but he goes with the majority of teams say.

              EDIT: Yes, he said McLemore and Noel + Bennett got 2nd tier votes. I would give McLemore a 2nd tier grade as well.


              Like I have said all along tier 5 is where it is at damn near 30 guys in that tier. pick 20-40 is where the value is. The Cavs are sitting so pretty with 3 picks in that range.
              Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-20-2013, 02:31 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                Trading for Blake would not be about the future, it would be more about freeing up salary next summer to either re-sign Granger, or if he is not healthy, to sign another free agent. Blake would be a one year solution at back-up PG.

                According to Draft Express, Deshaun Thomas would be available at 48 and Peyton Silva at 53. Thomas could be a back-up SF who could rotate to PF when teams try to play small ball on us. Silva would be a third string PG with potential of moving to second string after Blake leaves in the summer of 2014.


                I'm not interested in trading a pick where the Pacers have the opportunity to draft a player like Dieng, Bullock, Canaan, etc to get rid of Green and bring in a 33 year old Blake. I value the pick more than that, and I'd hope the Pacers would as well.

                Comment


                • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                  Originally posted by sav View Post
                  To my knowledge, the Pacers have not brought in any (or hardly any) potential first round picks for a workout. That tells me that they are going to trade their first round pick.

                  Maybe Green and first rounder to LA for Blake and second (48th overall) round pick?
                  The Lakers aren't looking for any contracts (besides Howard) past the 2013-14 season. Their books are clean beyond Steve Nash in 2014-15, and they don't want to mess with that. It's why they don't want to do a sign and trade for Howard.

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    Just like they were with McBob, and how did that work out? Lakers FO have more sense than to take on Green. Nothing more than a pipe dream from those wanting to load him off on someone else.
                    The Pacers essentially save 3 mil in that deal in exchange for a 1st round pick. It's a reasonable deal, similar deals happen quite often. I don't know if the Lakers specifically would do it, but the structure of that idea isn't a pipe dream.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                      Originally posted by shags View Post
                      The Lakers aren't looking for any contracts (besides Howard) past the 2013-14 season. Their books are clean beyond Steve Nash in 2014-15, and they don't want to mess with that. It's why they don't want to do a sign and trade for Howard.
                      To be fair, they would be crazy to even consider a sign and trade when they have a very solid chance to bring him back. Regardless of their cap plans.

                      Right now Dwight has to choose between Houston/Dallas/Atlanta or making more money in LA. Enter sign and trade, and now he has an option to consider Brooklyn/Clippers and playing with DWill or CP3 in a top market.

                      The Lakers should and I suspect will play this like the Nets did with DWill. Take it or leave it. Major money in a major market or less money in a smaller market.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                        Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                        The Pacers essentially save 3 mil in that deal in exchange for a 1st round pick. It's a reasonable deal, similar deals happen quite often. I don't know if the Lakers specifically would do it, but the structure of that idea isn't a pipe dream.

                        The Lakers take on 3 more mil in 14-15 and pay LT on it if they are over the LT. Basically, if the Lakers did this deal they are buying the pick, since they have no pick in this years draft.

                        AGAIN, Blake isn't worth the #23 pick for the Pacers to miss out on drafting a good young player for the core future. I would hope Walsh is smarter than this. If Walsh did this deal, he's fixing his past off season blunder of Green by trading the #23 pick. Why compound 1 blunder with another blunder?

                        I have no problem trading Green or the #23, but the Pacers need way more than an aging 33 yo player in return. Otherwise, keep Green and remember he'll be an expiring this time next year and easier to move.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          The Lakers take on 3 more mil in 14-15 and pay LT on it if they are over the LT. Basically, if the Lakers did this deal they are buying the pick, since they have no pick in this years draft.

                          AGAIN, Blake isn't worth the #23 pick for the Pacers to miss out on drafting a good young player for the core future. I would hope Walsh is smarter than this. If Walsh did this deal, he's fixing his past off season blunder of Green by trading the #23 pick. Why compound 1 blunder with another blunder?

                          I have no problem trading Green or the #23, but the Pacers need way more than an aging 33 yo player in return. Otherwise, keep Green and remember he'll be an expiring this time next year and easier to move.
                          Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's a typical pick sale, only the Pacers save on salary/cap instead of getting cash. Whether the Pacers or the Lakers would do it or not, that's a different question. But the trade idea itself is very conventional and not a pipe dream type at all.

                          (PS: the Lakers are very unlikely to be over luxury tax in 14-15)

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                            Chad Ford (ESPN) prospect rankings by tier

                            http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/blog/...cts-draft-tier

                            Is there a consensus No. 1 prospect in this year's draft? Is there a consensus anything in this year's draft?


                            Of course, the word "consensus" is a bit of a joke. We are a week away from the draft and there are still major debates running internally within every front office in the league. If teams can't agree, internally, on the order of draft prospects, how can we create a "consensus" ranking? As hard as it is for NBA draftniks to believe, there is very little agreement within teams, let alone between them, on draft night.


                            This year is especially difficult. There aren't any elite players at the top of the draft and then there is enormous parity from the late lottery to the early second round. Many prospects are all over the board. I've been doing this a long time, and I've never seen so little agreement so close to the draft. Obviously, the draft is an inexact science, despite concerted attempts to create analytical models that are more predictive of a player's future success. I've read through a number of those models, and they don't agree on anything either.


                            NBA teams watch prospects play thousands of hours of games. They go to practices. Go to camps. Hire guys from MIT to create statistical solutions. Work out players, give them psychological tests, do background checks and conduct personal interviews. And still, there is very little consensus. Factor in the debate between taking the best player available versus filling team needs, and the situation muddies itself further.


                            To make sense of all of this, the past few years I've chronicled a draft ranking system employed by several teams called the tier system.


                            In the tier system, teams group players, based on overall talent, into tiers. Then the teams rank the players in each tier based on team need. This system allows teams to draft not only the best player available, but also the player who best fits a team's individual needs.


                            So what do the tiers look like this year? After talking to several GMs and scouts whose teams employ this system, here is how the tiers look this year.


                            (Note: Players are listed alphabetically in each tier.)


                            _______________


                            Tier 1


                            Players:
                            None


                            Note: This category is usually reserved for guys who are sure-fire All-Stars and franchise players. Since 2009, only Blake Griffin, John Wall and Anthony Davis have been ranked in this slot. This year, there just isn't anyone who looks like a "sure-fire" anything.


                            _______________


                            Tier 2


                            Players:
                            None


                            Note: Tier 2 is reserved for players who are projected as potential All-Stars by scouts. They are typical high lottery picks in a normal draft. Last year Bradley Beal, Harrison Barnes, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist all got the nod as Tier 2 players. In 2011, Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams were in this tier.


                            This year, I couldn't get a majority of teams to project anyone in this draft as a potential All-Star. Nerlens Noel, Ben McLemore and Anthony Bennett all got a vote or two from teams that had them in Tier 2. But the overwhelming majority of teams I talked to had these players all ranked as Tier 3 prospects. This is the first draft tiers column I've ever done where there no players ranked in Tier 2.


                            _______________


                            Tier 3


                            Players:
                            Anthony Bennett
                            Alex Len
                            Ben McLemore
                            Nerlens Noel
                            Victor Oladipo
                            Otto Porter Jr.


                            Note: These are the top six guys in the draft. Noel, Bennett and McLemore each received a small amount of votes for Tier 2, but the majority of teams I spoke with had them in Tier 3. This is one of the very few places in the draft that you'll find consensus. While there are a few exceptions, there's a very good chance that these six players will be the first six players to hear their names called on draft night. Teams have these six ordered differently depending on team needs or whether they are looking for immediate help or upside, but every team I spoke with had these six as their top six in some order.


                            _______________


                            Tier 4


                            Players:
                            Steven Adams
                            Trey Burke
                            Michael Carter-Williams
                            Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
                            C.J. McCollum
                            Cody Zeller


                            Note: After Tier 3, the consensus breaks down pretty quickly. These are typical late-lottery to mid-first-round selections in a normal draft -- selections 10-20. In this draft this group is more likely to be drafted in the 7-14 range. Trey Burke, C.J. McCollum and Michael Carter-Williams got a small number of votes for Tier 3. But the majority of teams had them ranked in Tier 4. Zeller was ranked in Tier 4 by every team I spoke with. Caldwell-Pope and Adams had some Tier 5 votes, but the majority were in Tier 4.


                            _______________


                            Tier 5


                            Players:
                            Giannis Antetokounmpo
                            Reggie Bullock
                            Isaiah Canaan
                            Allen Crabbe
                            Gorgui Dieng
                            Jamaal Franklin
                            Rudy Gobert
                            Archie Goodwin
                            Erick Green
                            Tim Hardaway Jr.
                            Pierre Jackson
                            Sergey Karasev
                            Shane Larkin
                            Ricardo Ledo
                            C.J. Leslie
                            Tony Mitchell
                            Shabazz Muhammad
                            Mike Muscala
                            Lucas Nogueira
                            Kelly Olynyk
                            Mason Plumlee
                            Glen Rice Jr.
                            Dennis Schroeder
                            Tony Snell
                            Jeff Withey
                            Nate Wolters


                            Note: This next group is the largest Tier 5 I've ever had, and it shows where the strength of the draft is. There is incredible depth here, and it's not uncommon to hear teams say that the player you draft at No. 35 might be as good as the player you get at No. 15. There is a whopping 25 players in this group. At least seven of these players won't hear their names called in the first round.


                            A few teams had Antetokounmpo, Karasev, Muhammad and Nogueira in Tier 4, but not quite enough for them to make the cut. Interestingly, Ledo got two votes for Tier 4 and is a guy who clearly has been impressing people in workouts.


                            _______________


                            Tier 6


                            Players:
                            Alex Abrines
                            Lorenzo Brown
                            Jackie Carmichael
                            James Ennis
                            Colton Iverson
                            Livio Jean-Charles
                            Grant Jerrett
                            Myck Kabongo
                            Ray McCallum
                            Nemanja Nedovic
                            Phil Pressey
                            Andre Roberson
                            B.J. Young


                            Note: This tier has the players who were listed as top 60 prospects by the majority of the teams I spoke with. Of the group, only Abrines, Jerrett and Pressey got some Tier 5 votes.


                            _______________


                            Like every draft system, the tier system isn't perfect. But the teams that run it have had success with it. It has allowed them to get help through the draft without overreaching. Compared to traditional top-30 lists or mock drafts, it has proven to be a much more precise tool of gauging which players a team should draft.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                              Why are we arguing about a Pacers-Lakers deal that isn't even a rumor, and is made up?

                              Want to talk about a possibility of that type of trade, why not do it in the trade forum (or even make a new thread in the main forum and ask what ppl want to do with our pick, and include the option to trade it with GG to shed salary) and not in the draft prospects forum.

                              JMO...
                              "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2012-2013 NBA draft prospects thread

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                I'm not interested in trading a pick where the Pacers have the opportunity to draft a player like Dieng, Bullock, Canaan, etc to get rid of Green and bring in a 33 year old Blake. I value the pick more than that, and I'd hope the Pacers would as well.
                                I'm not counting on Green moving any time soon......Teams HIGHLY value Cap Flexibility....and I doubt that tacking on a 1st round pick in the 20s are going to entice a Team enough to take Green on.

                                My opinion is that we keep the pick cuz it will be cheaper to draft talent then sign talent for the long-term under the assumption that the Coaching Staff will work with Green to help him fit in better for the upcoming season.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X