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

ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

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

  • #76
    Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

    This is an easy solution:

    Spin Odom for a young guard or a draft pick to select a young guard.

    I'm looking at you, Dallas. I think if Dallas had Odom they would have beaten the Warriors.
    The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe via iTunes

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

      If you trade Odom you have to take back 10 mil in salary minimum.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

        Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
        If you trade Odom you have to take back 10 mil in salary minimum.
        Maybe we can get back a draft pick and two more General Manager-types?
        Narf!

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

          Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
          If you trade Odom you have to take back 10 mil in salary minimum.

          Hopefully 5-8 million of what we take back is expiring.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
            Hopefully 5-8 million of what we take back is expiring.
            If I look at this purely from the Pacers POV....I would much rather have Odom involved in a 3-way team trade and send him to some other team where we can get some valuable players in return.

            I could care less if Odom would be playing here or not....he doesn't have to be looked at as a player that we can use in the lineup in the near future...when he is included in any trade talks....he can be used a a valuable trading asset.

            I just don't understand how many of you can simply settle for an Expiring Contract, Bynum and a 19th pick for JONeal when we are in a position where we should be able to come out ahead in any trade with the Lakers. I don't know why we have to settle for more a "lesser" deal just because one of the key players doesn't want to come to Indy. If Odom really doesn't want to come...then the Lakers better figure out a way to compensate us more. As DiamondDave suggested...we better get a future 1st round pick in 2009...at the very least. As far as I am concerned...that's not our problem...that's the Lakers problem.

            I hope that if the deal is just Kwame+Bynum+19th pick...that we wait til draft day to see if anyone wants to offer something for him so that we at least have some options.

            I just can believe that there is so little interest in JONeal that no one would offer something...anything...for him.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

              Odom make 12.5 mil this season , if you wait till July 11 he makes 13.5 mil . Basic trade restrictions allow a team to take on 125% + 100,000 of what they trade away.

              Thus a team acquiring Odom must send us contracts worth 9.5 mil in June and 10.3 mil in July. Draft picks have no monetary value in a trade , but once a pick has been used the player can be traded at his slotted draft spots value on the rookie pay scale.

              Its the reason I suggest we accept Kwame Brown's expiring deal , Farmar , 19 this year and a future one + filer instead of Odom. In a year Brown's 9 mil and the filer 3.5 come of the payroll.

              We end up with Bynum, Farmar , whoever we take at 19 a future #1 and 12.5 mil cap money removed.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                I hope that if the deal is just Kwame+Bynum+19th pick...that we wait til draft day to see if anyone wants to offer something for him so that we at least have some options.

                I just can believe that there is so little interest in JONeal that no one would offer something...anything...for him.
                I agree that we should be able to get better than just Bynum + 19 + expiring deals, but I'm not sure we're in such a huge position of leverage here.

                I still say Kupchuk/West/Buss/Jeanie Buss/Phil/whoever else they have making decisions in LA can get KG if they really want too. Pau Gasol is out there.Zack Randolph, who of course has his own issues, is also easily attainable. There's talk (mere speculation?) about Sheed being available. Antawn Jamison can be had.

                Obviously, the Kobe situation forces the Lakers hand a little, and I'm guessing anything less the KG, JO or Pau wouldn't really satisfy the Mamba....but, there are a lot of 20/10-ish types out there that could be brought in.

                They get Pau or someone for just Bynum + pick + filler and maybe Kobe would stop whining with a starting roster of Farmar/Kobe/Odom/Gasol/Center.

                I just think the Lakers front office must see the same complaints some Pacer fans have with JO (injuries, too many jumpshots, non-aggressive rebounder, etc.) and may not want to "sell the farm" to get him. Why not go get KG if you're gonna sell the farm? If they're tryna give away as little as possible (which is always the standard GM position), and we won't take their offer, they can probably get Gasol or Randolph for the offer we reject.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  If I look at this purely from the Pacers POV....I would much rather have Odom involved in a 3-way team trade and send him to some other team where we can get some valuable players in return.

                  I could care less if Odom would be playing here or not....he doesn't have to be looked at as a player that we can use in the lineup in the near future...when he is included in any trade talks....he can be used a a valuable trading asset.

                  I just don't understand how many of you can simply settle for an Expiring Contract, Bynum and a 19th pick for JONeal when we are in a position where we should be able to come out ahead in any trade with the Lakers. I don't know why we have to settle for more a "lesser" deal just because one of the key players doesn't want to come to Indy. If Odom really doesn't want to come...then the Lakers better figure out a way to compensate us more. As DiamondDave suggested...we better get a future 1st round pick in 2009...at the very least. As far as I am concerned...that's not our problem...that's the Lakers problem.

                  I hope that if the deal is just Kwame+Bynum+19th pick...that we wait til draft day to see if anyone wants to offer something for him so that we at least have some options.

                  I just can believe that there is so little interest in JONeal that no one would offer something...anything...for him.

                  No, you misunderstand. I want a young guard on his rookie or second contract, which would put his salary at 1-3 million a year. Pair that guy up with an expiring and we are in business.

                  For the sake of example, we could trade Odom to the Celtics for Gerald Green and Theo Ratliff. Combine that with the 8 million we save by taking on Brown, and we would get Bynum, Green, and 20 million in cap room. That's a hell of a deal.

                  That twenty million dollars would put us 11 million under the cap in 2008. Ben Gordon is a free agent. You think he would sign here for 8.5 million over five seasons?

                  Plus, we would suck for a season, and we would end up with a top ten draft pick.

                  So, we would have in effect gotten Gerald Green, Ben Gordon, Andrew Bynum, and a top ten pick for JO. Sound good?

                  Not saying this is a likely senario (pretty sure Boston wouldn't bite on that unless Pierce started *****ing Kobe-style), but that illustrates the power of cap room, especially in the modern NBA when all but 2-3 teams are over the cap.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                    Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                    Odom make 12.5 mil this season , if you wait till July 11 he makes 13.5 mil . Basic trade restrictions allow a team to take on 125% + 100,000 of what they trade away.

                    Thus a team acquiring Odom must send us contracts worth 9.5 mil in June and 10.3 mil in July. Draft picks have no monetary value in a trade , but once a pick has been used the player can be traded at his slotted draft spots value on the rookie pay scale.

                    Its the reason I suggest we accept Kwame Brown's expiring deal , Farmar , 19 this year and a future one + filer instead of Odom. In a year Brown's 9 mil and the filer 3.5 come of the payroll.

                    We end up with Bynum, Farmar , whoever we take at 19 a future #1 and 12.5 mil cap money removed.
                    What if the other team is under the cap? Would the salaries still have to match?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                      Originally posted by bread View Post
                      What if the other team is under the cap? Would the salaries still have to match?

                      No, as long as they are still under the cap after the trade.
                      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                      RSS Feed
                      Subscribe via iTunes

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                        Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                        We end up with Bynum, Farmar , whoever we take at 19 a future #1 and 12.5 mil cap money removed.
                        That's fine...if the best that we can truly get for JONeal is Bynum+Kwame+19+future 1st....then I will be disappointed....but can live with it.

                        Honestly....I really hope that TPTB tries to swing Odom to Boston for Ratliff+#5 or Ratliff+Green in a 3 team trade.

                        Lakers
                        Out: Odom + Bynum + 19th pick
                        In: JONeal

                        Celtics
                        Out: Ratliff + ( #5 or Green - their choice )
                        In: Odom

                        Pacers
                        Out: JONeal
                        In: Ratliff ( Expring Contract ) + Bynum + 19th Pick + ( #5 or Green )

                        For Odom....Boston didn't do any better then the Pacers in the record-books...but I can see Boston as a more attractive city to be traded to IF he had to be traded. I just don't that if we trade JONeal that we will be any better then Boston in the upcoming season.

                        For Boston.....they get a very solid 2nd fiddle to play next to Pierce without giving up too much.

                        For the Pacers...I understand the need for getting an Expiring Contract....but I just think that we can get more out of this deal IF we get back Odom instead of Kwame...who can be is used as a trading asset. It may simply mean that if we get Odom, we just get Green or the #5 pick.......but that's something that we can use to help rebuild.

                        Although the Lakers have to give up Odom.....they will still have Kwame to use as a bargaining chip to get the best player that they can. I know that its not much...but as far as I am concerned...that's not my problem. I know that I sound greedy in my posts about wanting Odom....but if we are rebuilding....my concern is getting the most value for JONeal. If it means squeezing Odom out of the Lakers in any deal and getting back a prospect in Green or the #5 pick in return...then I am all for it.

                        I just don't think that we shouldn't be settling for a "Kwame+Bynum+19th pick" deal from the Lakers just because Odom is unhappy ( like he should be given any choice ). We should be expecting more for JONeal.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 06-06-2007, 02:12 PM.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                          Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                          No, as long as they are still under the cap after the trade.
                          That's what I thought. That being the case, these teams are under the cap:

                          Hawks, Bobcats, Bulls, Griz, Bucks, Hornets, Magic, & the Sonics.

                          How about sending Odom to the Griz for #4, Dahntey Jones and maybe Warrick/Swift. He could hang out with Jerry West at the airport.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                            Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                            No, you misunderstand. I want a young guard on his rookie or second contract, which would put his salary at 1-3 million a year. Pair that guy up with an expiring and we are in business.

                            For the sake of example, we could trade Odom to the Celtics for Gerald Green and Theo Ratliff. Combine that with the 8 million we save by taking on Brown, and we would get Bynum, Green, and 20 million in cap room. That's a hell of a deal.

                            That twenty million dollars would put us 11 million under the cap in 2008. Ben Gordon is a free agent. You think he would sign here for 8.5 million over five seasons?

                            Plus, we would suck for a season, and we would end up with a top ten draft pick.

                            So, we would have in effect gotten Gerald Green, Ben Gordon, Andrew Bynum, and a top ten pick for JO. Sound good?

                            Not saying this is a likely senario (pretty sure Boston wouldn't bite on that unless Pierce started *****ing Kobe-style), but that illustrates the power of cap room, especially in the modern NBA when all but 2-3 teams are over the cap.
                            Help me breakdown the trade that you are proposing....are you suggesting that the Lakers trade Odom+Kwame+Bynum for JONeal+(whoever matches salaries )?

                            If so...even I...who wants a player like Odom included....don't think that we can get BOTH Kwame and Odom. Once we include players that we may want to jettison...like Tinsley, Murphy or Dunleavy.....( sorry, I want to keep Marquis )...then we start to lose what "bargaining" power that we have to get back the best deal for JONeal.

                            I'm all for getting back as much Salarycap space as possible going forward...but I don't expect the Lakers to trade all of their "trading assets" while taking back horrible long-term contracts.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                              Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                              I agree that we should be able to get better than just Bynum + 19 + expiring deals, but I'm not sure we're in such a huge position of leverage here.

                              I still say Kupchuk/West/Buss/Jeanie Buss/Phil/whoever else they have making decisions in LA can get KG if they really want too. Pau Gasol is out there.Zack Randolph, who of course has his own issues, is also easily attainable. There's talk (mere speculation?) about Sheed being available. Antawn Jamison can be had.

                              Obviously, the Kobe situation forces the Lakers hand a little, and I'm guessing anything less the KG, JO or Pau wouldn't really satisfy the Mamba....but, there are a lot of 20/10-ish types out there that could be brought in.

                              They get Pau or someone for just Bynum + pick + filler and maybe Kobe would stop whining with a starting roster of Farmar/Kobe/Odom/Gasol/Center.

                              I just think the Lakers front office must see the same complaints some Pacer fans have with JO (injuries, too many jumpshots, non-aggressive rebounder, etc.) and may not want to "sell the farm" to get him. Why not go get KG if you're gonna sell the farm? If they're tryna give away as little as possible (which is always the standard GM position), and we won't take their offer, they can probably get Gasol or Randolph for the offer we reject.
                              It depends how good you think this kid Bynam is.IF you think this guy has a chance to be a franchise player(one of the top 10 players in the league) then then it makes sense to do the deal and you also get the 19th maybe somebody slips and you get a nice player at that position. I don't believe he is a franchise player. If this is the case you take this deal right away.

                              I think he'll be a very good player all-star caliber type of a player but not on the level Of ,David Robinson,Tim Duncan,Shaq or even what Greg Oden will become.I don't think he is a special palyer.Therefore I would wait and see what other teams come up with, its still very early, I don't think we should rush this.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: ESPN - Stein's notebook: Odom unhappy about possible Pacers trade

                                If we traded as I suggest for Bynum , Farmar, 2007 & 09 #1's , Brown and filer perhaps resigned and waived mckie salary paid by Lakers including 3 mil in trade you create cap room.

                                After you remove Brown and McKie's 12.5 mil after next season. You are left with Bynum at 2.8 mil , Farmar at 1 mil , pick 19 around 1 mil = 4.8 mil instead of JO's 21.3 mil in 2008-08. Saving over 16 million plus you still have the 2009 1st from the Lakers to use.

                                This gives you money to help resign Granger, Diogu annd Bynum in the year after. Plus you don't have the 23 mil of JO in 2009-10.

                                Just my thought on why a package minus Odom may be a better long term idea.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X