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

Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

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

  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

    Lol I'm still trying to figure out who criticizes Paul or Lance? Hill and Granger are tied for receiving the most flack form posters, with Ian being a distant 3rd.

    At the end of the day, we are all going to complain about something these guys do--it's just the nature of a discussion board. But to say that Lance and Paul are criticized more than George Hill or Danny Granger is preposterous.

    Comment


    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      My problem is everyone has a built-in excuse except PG and Lance.

      Any one who was frustrated with Hibbert missing bunnies last year was told to stop complaining because of what he bring defensively.

      Same with Hill, he has a bad game we're told that without his defense at the point guard position that would make us a noticeable worse defense.

      Danny is allowed to take off the first four months of the season without much gripe. West has a bad game you're told he's the heart and soul of the team be quiet.

      Ian can't play post defense without fouling the offensive player and even he has defenders.
      I am simply highlighting this part of the post.....but I'm not sure how to respond other than with

      I didnt know that there were people complaining about Granger not returning anytime sooner. Maybe it is due to poor wording on your part…..but you make it seem like Granger wasn't off due to legitimate injury/conditioning concerns but that he decided to take some extended vacation. We all wished that he could return sooner...but didn't think that he could return for any other reason than a legit injury / conditioning concern.

      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
      The big money guys have excuse after excuse but Lance who is making about a million better not have a bad game. PG's big contract doesn't kick in until next year unless I am mistaken and he is held to a higher standard than Granger in his prime. He's one of the best two way players but gets called a lazy diva if he has a bad game and no one sticks up for him not even myself. No one says yeah he had a bad game but he got this many assist or he shut down his man or without his defense we would be a worst team.

      PG brings way more to this team besides scoring, he's 8th in steals and rebounds well for his position. I think it's clear Vogels tells PG to ball watch and help protect the paint, from time to time he allows back door cuts no one says things like, "that will happen when you have so many responsibilities on defense." Meanwhile Hill cannot keep any one in front of him we're told the defense is designed to allow penetration. See how one guys has an excuse for "poor play" but the other doesn't?

      I'm most likely going to get another infraction for this post but the bias is clear I'm not making this stuff up someone prove me wrong.
      So....we are allowed to complain about PG24 and Lance only after they get paid......until then......we shouldn't be complaining about either of them...cuz they are still on their rookie contract and therefore does not deserve the scrutiny?

      PG24 is the face of the franchise and has been since Granger went down ( at least IMHO ). Yes, he should be held to the same level of Granger-level scrutiny when Granger was in his prime ( unfortunately, a VERY LONG time ago ) and considered the Face of the Franchise. I could care less that PG24 is on his rookie contract.....PG24 is the face of the Franchise and deserves to be held up to the light of praise and/or critical glare of criticism. Same IMHO goes to Lance.

      PG24 does deserve some criticism for his poor shooting in yesterday's game.....but that doesn't mean that we don't recognize that he contributes on the other end of the court ( as you illustrated in your above post ). Against a clearly less talented team like the Lakers...we can glide by even if PG24 like garbage....but if he shot like this against a more elite Team....I would want him to "create more for others and shoot less" then just have him shoot himself out of the funk. We can't afford for PG24 to shoot like garbage against the Elite Teams cuz we can't cover up mistakes like that in games that are as talented as the Pacers are.

      ALL Players....regardless of role deserve criticism but only if it is actually warranted.....the question is whether the criticism is deserved ( cuz he wasn't hitting the side of a barn for a single game ) or not ( simply cuz the Poster is biased and doesn't hold anyone outside of PG24 and Lance in high regard ).
      Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2014, 02:10 AM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

        Originally posted by Magic P View Post
        My problem is everyone has a built-in excuse except PG and Lance.

        Any one who was frustrated with Hibbert missing bunnies last year was told to stop complaining because of what he bring defensively.

        Same with Hill, he has a bad game we're told that without his defense at the point guard position that would make us a noticeable worse defense.

        Danny is allowed to take off the first four months of the season without much gripe. West has a bad game you're told he's the heart and soul of the team be quiet.

        Ian can't play post defense without fouling the offensive player and even he has defenders.

        The big money guys have excuse after excuse but Lance who is making about a million better not have a bad game. PG's big contract doesn't kick in until next year unless I am mistaken and he is held to a higher standard than Granger in his prime. He's one of the best two way players but gets called a lazy diva if he has a bad game and no one sticks up for him not even myself. No one says yeah he had a bad game but he got this many assist or he shut down his man or without his defense we would be a worst team.

        PG brings way more to this team besides scoring, he's 8th in steals and rebounds well for his position. I think it's clear Vogels tells PG to ball watch and help protect the paint, from time to time he allows back door cuts no one says things like, "that will happen when you have so many responsibilities on defense." Meanwhile Hill cannot keep any one in front of him we're told the defense is designed to allow penetration. See how one guys has an excuse for "poor play" but the other doesn't?

        I'm most likely going to get another infraction for this post but the bias is clear I'm not making this stuff up someone prove me wrong.
        Yeah, you're making stuff up.

        I have personally defended PG and Lance numerous times. In fact, I have defended every single player in this team and the same goes for those two who happen to be 2 of our 3 most important players (Roy is the other one).

        I'm sorry, mate, but you're hunting ghosts. You're imagining that people "hate" on Lance or PG. Yes, some people are not big fans of their celebrations and some others thing that we shouldn't give $14M per year to Lance but no one has anything against them. If anything they're the most loved players in this forum.

        Do you know which players have real haters?

        Danny Granger has haters. Numerous people in this forum seem to hold a grudge against Granger one way or another. They go so far as to completely disown statistics if they happen to say something good about Granger.

        George Hill has haters. They are very vocal in game threads. Several people fail to realize that about 90% of the PGs that are playing against us are having horrible shooting nights against Hill and instead blame him for funneling guards to Hibbert and forcing a miss.

        Roy Hibbert had haters. A lot of people were torching him last year when he was struggling with his wrist injury. Thankfully, most of it has stopped after his playoff performance but some people still nag about his offense from time to time.

        Darren Collison had haters. Practically, the whole forum except 5-10 posters had turned against DC following the words of a certain someone.

        Miles Plumlee had haters. Tons of them. Most of the forum was killing Miles on a consistent basis and only a few of them were willing to take a wait and see approach.

        Paul George and Lance Stephenson are mostly loved in this forum. I don't think that there is anyone who actually hates them like they did with the 5 players that I mentioned above.

        I mean, just look at the avatars of the rest of the forum. PG and Lance are the ones that occupy most avatars.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

          I love em both, but Hill's been better than West this year. As he should be, age and all. But it's all DUMP HILL HE CAN'T DENY PENETRATION TO THE BEST CROP OF POINTS THE NBA HAS EVER SEEN AND HE CAN'T HAND CHECK AND HE DUCKS UNDER SCREENS BECAUSE OUR ENTIRE CONCEPT IS TO FUNNEL TO THE PAINT.

          Whatever, you know what I'm saying. Hill at 3/24 or West at 3/36? Get serious and stop playing favorites. If you want to ***** about contracts West's is the one that's going to hurt. Hill's here, Lance is hopefully/probably gonna be here, I have no doubt Roy will never wear another jersey and get 55 hung in the rafters. Scola's not getting younger, we need to start looking for a 4 replacement now because we're not just going to be able to buy one. We'll have Lance/PG/Roy forever basically, but there's no 4 in the pipeline to groom, we gotta get that. If we're not gonna spend the tax we've got to be 2+ years worth of forward thinking now.

          Comment


          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

            I'm sure this has been posted already somewhere in these sixty pages, but just in case it hasn't, Sam Amico wrote this:

            Pacers forward Danny Granger, another impending free agent, is drawing lots of interest as the trade deadline approaches, league sources said. The same goes for Cavaliers guard C.J. Miles, although to a significantly lesser extent.
            Say the Pacers did decide to trade Granger, what position would they try to trade for? Backup center?

            Comment


            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

              The problem continues to be that there's no financial sense behind trading Danny unless you expect what you get back to replace Lance Stephenson because you've decided not to pay for him.

              Comment


              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                The problem continues to be that there's no financial sense behind trading Danny unless you expect what you get back to replace Lance Stephenson because you've decided not to pay for him.
                Not exactly.

                Another reason to trade Granger would be to somehow package Copeland out for a huge ( but likely useless ) Expiring Contract to shave off 2014-2015 capspace.

                To me....the only reason to trade Granger is if you can include Copeland in any such trade WHILE getting back a HUGE expiring Contract and nothing back. As to who we get back...it would be nice if it's a helpful Player....but it could be the Team Mascot for all I care. It would affect our bench depth for this season....but it would go a long way to giving the Pacers some breathing room to re-sign Lance without having to let Scola go or trade GH.

                Now, I am sure that many here would just say....just trade Copeland for an expiring contract in the next 3 weeks. Sure, it can be that simple....but IMHO...I don't think that it is. I'd hope that some combination of OJ+2nd round picks along with Copeland would do it...but I'm not holding my breath here.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  Not exactly.

                  Another reason to trade Granger would be to somehow package Copeland out for a huge ( but likely useless ) Expiring Contract to shave off 2014-2015 capspace.

                  To me....the only reason to trade Granger is if you can include Copeland in any such trade WHILE getting back a HUGE expiring Contract and nothing back. As to who we get back...it would be nice if it's a helpful Player....but it could be the Team Mascot for all I care. It would affect our bench depth for this season....but it would go a long way to giving the Pacers some breathing room to re-sign Lance without having to let Scola go or trade GH.

                  Now, I am sure that many here would just say....just trade Copeland for an expiring contract in the next 3 weeks. Sure, it can be that simple....but IMHO...I don't think that it is. I'd hope that some combination of OJ+2nd round picks along with Copeland would do it...but I'm not holding my breath here.
                  I suppose so. Not sure it's realistic, but possible.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    I suppose so. Not sure it's realistic, but possible.
                    I agree.....I can only see that scenario working with some Team like the Suns or Bobcats that may want to upgrade their roster at the cost of taking on Copeland for a strong Playoff push. Both of these Teams have huge Expiring contracts that they can use to add more quality depth to their roster.

                    But as you said.....more than likely...it's not realistic that this happens. Most Teams looking for a HUGE expiring is looking to shed long-term salary ( what we don't want ) ...not look for ugrades to their roster while sending back nothing but Expiring Contracts.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      I'm sure this has been posted already somewhere in these sixty pages, but just in case it hasn't, Sam Amico wrote this:
                      If it's by Sam Amico, stop reading whatever it is.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        If it's by Sam Amico, stop reading whatever it is.
                        To be fair....the way that I read it is that Granger ( like any other Big Expiring Contract ) is drawing interest from other Teams....just like the way that ( I assume ) other Big Expiring Contracts ( like Okafor or Ben Gordon ) is drawing interest specifically for Teams that are looking to shed long-term salary.

                        I do not doubt that Bird would have a price tag for another team to get Granger ( my guess is that price being one where the Pacers get back a useful Wing Player that is on a huge Expiring contract while sending out Copeland )....but it doesn't necessarily mean that Bird is calling up every GM asking if they are interested...I suspect that it's the other way around..

                        I just doubt that other Teams are willing to pay the price that he's asking for.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                          CableKC, that's exactly why you shouldn't read Amico. He very rarely (if ever) has any substance to his reporting. It's either "water is wet" news like this or passing on some bullcrap he heard as fact...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            The problem continues to be that there's no financial sense behind trading Danny unless you expect what you get back to replace Lance Stephenson because you've decided not to pay for him.
                            Exactly...so unless Orlando is ready to trade Afflalo and one of Harrington/Davis/Nelson for Granger then it aint happening...
                            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                            Comment


                            • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                              Am I the only one that thinks he barely looks like he belongs on an NBA roster anymore. He can do one thing now, stand at the three point line and shoot spot up threes, and he can't do that well. If it's true that teams are interested in him (and I highly doubt it is), the Pacers would be crazy not to move him. If we could get any sort of competent wing scorer off the bench in exchange for him, it would be a huge upgrade.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Danny Granger 13-14 Discussion

                                Originally posted by LongTimePacerFan View Post
                                Am I the only one that thinks he barely looks like he belongs on an NBA roster anymore. He can do one thing now, stand at the three point line and shoot spot up threes, and he can't do that well. If it's true that teams are interested in him (and I highly doubt it is), the Pacers would be crazy not to move him. If we could get any sort of competent wing scorer off the bench in exchange for him, it would be a huge upgrade.
                                He has looked pretty bad lately. Reggie at 39 looked more spry than DG does at 30. He has been a solid passer and has come up with some crafty defensive plays, but he's just not giving us productive offense. He can't create a shot, he can't successfully take it to the rack, and he can't get open without the ball like he used to. His offensive skills are just a shell of what they used to be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X