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

Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

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

  • #46
    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

    Originally posted by naptown View Post
    Cook is irrelevant. Lets get the young pieces (Bynum and Crittenton) together so we can start building towards being contenders again instead of just being perennial 6th-8th seeds. Cook does not hinder us at all in that aspect and can be kept cheaply if he fits in with an up tempo style (all we have seen him in is the triangle in the NBA) or traded easily.
    That's fine....we can agree to disagree. I think that with a core of Bynum, Ike and Granger....all of which has contract extensions occuring in the same season....it is critical that we clear as much capspace as possible in order to resign them. Getting a player like Odom...which has a salary that is cleared in 2 seasons is a good thing. To me...that means that taking on any unnecessary contracts...even if its just 3.5 mil a year.....is a bad thing.

    I agree.....I'm not gonna overvalue JONeal....but I also won't give just give JONeal away.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      That's fine....we can agree to disagree. I think that with a core of Bynum, Ike and Granger....all of which has contract extensions occuring in the same season....it is critical that we clear as much capspace as possible in order to resign them. Getting a player like Odom...which has a salary that is cleared in 2 seasons is a good thing. To me...that means that taking on any unnecessary contracts...even if its just 3.5 mil a year.....is a bad thing.

      I agree.....I'm not gonna overvalue JONeal....but I also won't give just give JONeal away.
      I understand what you are saying and I would not be saying this trade is good if it was Farmar, but Crittenton is another thing completely. Once I seen LA draft him then I was more than willing to not take Odom as part of the trade. He is the real deal. This kid is going to be one of the next great PG's. He has that kind of talent, but more importantly he has that passion to be the best. That work ethic to be the best.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

        While Kwame's expiring would have value, that value isn't worth nearly as much as Odom, and that's what this whole thing is about is value. Odom can likely be spun into a young player and/or a draft pick at the trade deadline, whereas Kwame would only be useful to bring in a veteran with a bloated contract. Yes, there is value in simply letting Kwame expire, but we don't have anyone huge coming up for free agency next year, so you might as well get the better player if you're going to let the contract expire. Either way, Bynum + Kwame isn't enough.

        As for Crittendon, sure, he's got potential. So does Stanko, but it doesn't mean much until he actually starts playing. You see a big PG who has a lot of athletic ability and talent. I see a guy who had a relatively lousy 1.5 AST/TO ratio and got exposed as soon as he ran into superior talent in the NCAA Tournament. I'm not saying he won't be a good (or even great) player someday, but he's already proven that he buckles under pressure at the college level, and he's neither a great shooter nor a great distributor. If you're Dwayne Wade as a rookie, that's ok, but for Javaris, it's a death sentence. He's got talent, but he's also got a long, long way to go before I'm ready to say he and Bynum are enough talent to dump O'Neal.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

          Originally posted by Eindar View Post
          As for Crittendon, sure, he's got potential. So does Stanko, but it doesn't mean much until he actually starts playing. You see a big PG who has a lot of athletic ability and talent. I see a guy who had a relatively lousy 1.5 AST/TO ratio and got exposed as soon as he ran into superior talent in the NCAA Tournament.
          Sorry but that is laughable. Superior talent in the NCAA Tourney? They played one game and lost to UNLV. But he did play in the ACC. So he played in the best conference in the NCAA all year long. In conference play he averaged 16 points, 5.4 assists, 3.4 rebounds and 2.1 assists. Not bad for a freshman point guard in the strongest conference in the NCAA.

          I think I will will judge him more by those 16 games in conference than the 1 game he played in the tourney. And even in that one tourney game he had 8 points, 6 assists, 5 boards and 2 steals. From a freshman point guard. Exposed? In one game? Laughable.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

            Originally posted by naptown View Post
            Sorry but that is laughable. Superior talent in the NCAA Tourney? They played one game and lost to UNLV. But he did play in the ACC. So he played in the best conference in the NCAA all year long. In conference play he averaged 16 points, 5.4 assists, 3.4 rebounds and 2.1 assists. Not bad for a freshman point guard in the strongest conference in the NCAA.

            I think I will will judge him more by those 16 games in conference than the 1 game he played in the tourney. And even in that one tourney game he had 8 points, 6 assists, 5 boards and 2 steals. From a freshman point guard. Exposed? In one game? Laughable.
            1.5 turnover ratio.

            Mediocre shooting %

            He's not a bum, and he could be great, but he's not going to be great this year, and I'd guess it'll be 2 years or more before he's "ready". And then there's still the possibility that Javaris does turn out to be a bum, Bynum turns out to be "only" a decent starting center, and we got taken to the cleaners for JO.

            If you just look at raw stats, Stephen Jackson is a good scorer. Of course, you have to ignore those pesky nights where he shoots 3-15 with 4 turnovers and 2 assists.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

              First of I'm a Lakers fan too. I just want to share my thought on this particular issue.

              That guy oneofthesedays is correct, no way the Lakers trade Bynum/LO for JO. But I also understand where the Pacers fans are going at. Nobody want to take a risk on a "potential" player and bunch of craps from the Lakers for an all-star player like JO. Then lets discuss which franchise gets hurt more if both sides stay put ok. The two biggest difference between the Lakers/Pacers franchise, no disrespect to Pacers fan btw, but the Lakers are a team known to win and are not satisfy with being mediocre. Certainly not in the eyes of Hollywood where celebrities buy season tickets just to see the Lakers being mediocre. Well, for the Pacers organization, from the fan perspective being mediocre is acceptable although not something y'all want.

              Therefore my point is, if Lakers end up not trading for JO, we have other option that can improve our team like acquiring Paul Gasol (there is a deeper reason why we draft his younger brother Marc Gasol if you guys haven't notice), and still be competitive or maybe a contender with Kobe/Paul/LO. But the Pacers? Keeping JO is a disaster. The best the Pacers can go is compete for that last Eastern Conference playoff spot. Then again, the Pacers can trade JO for Krstic, Jefferson, Collins. But think twice, and honestly do you guys really think they can get you guys deep in the playoff? Oh please! Kristic just got a season ending injury and there is still a lot of doubt as to whether both Krstic and Jefferson can play at a 110% like in the past. So my question is why not trying to unload the huge contract of JO (20 millions) and take a risk on the potential of Bynum with a solid PG like Farmar, while gaining some cap relief in Kwame Brown (who is still a very serviceable center btw)? Also, Indiana is not an attractive place for free agency (LA Lakers have another advantage on this issue btw).

              Looks at Portland, Orlando, and Seattle, they're already start rebuilding. The point is you guys need to start rebuilding and catchup to those teams. The best scenarios for the Pacers to rebuild are through young players, taking risk on "potential" player, and through the draft. Why not suffering maybe 1 or 2 year of losing, and maybe getting lucky and end up with a young franchise player through the draft while still having Bynum, Iko, and Granger as your core? And the best way to rebuild is through a center.

              Like I said, Pacers lose nothing if Bynum ends up a bust. At least you guys get a year earlier in your rebuilding process. If your team think they can still compete for championship or if you think JO would be happy coming back for the Pacers after hearing his name bouncing around like a ping pong, uhhh think again! The JO experience is over.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                Originally posted by The_Showtime View Post
                First of I'm a Lakers fan too. I just want to share my thought on this particular issue.

                That guy oneofthesedays is correct, no way the Lakers trade Bynum/LO for JO. But I also understand where the Pacers fans are going at. Nobody want to take a risk on a "potential" player and bunch of craps from the Lakers for an all-star player like JO. Then lets discuss which franchise gets hurt more if both sides stay put ok. The two biggest difference between the Lakers/Pacers franchise, no disrespect to Pacers fan btw, but the Lakers are a team known to win and are not satisfy with being mediocre. Certainly not in the eyes of Hollywood where celebrities buy season tickets just to see the Lakers being mediocre. Well, for the Pacers organization, from the fan perspective being mediocre is acceptable although not something y'all want.

                Therefore my point is, if Lakers end up not trading for JO, we have other option that can improve our team like acquiring Paul Gasol (there is a deeper reason why we draft his younger brother Marc Gasol if you guys haven't notice), and still be competitive or maybe a contender with Kobe/Paul/LO. But the Pacers? Keeping JO is a disaster. The best the Pacers can go is compete for that last Eastern Conference playoff spot. Then again, the Pacers can trade JO for Krstic, Jefferson, Collins. But think twice, and honestly do you guys really think they can get you guys deep in the playoff? Oh please! Kristic just got a season ending injury and there is still a lot of doubt as to whether both Krstic and Jefferson can play at a 110% like in the past. So my question is why not trying to unload the huge contract of JO (20 millions) and take a risk on the potential of Bynum with a solid PG like Farmar, while gaining some cap relief in Kwame Brown (who is still a very serviceable center btw)? Also, Indiana is not an attractive place for free agency (LA Lakers have another advantage on this issue btw).

                Looks at Portland, Orlando, and Seattle, they're already start rebuilding. The point is you guys need to start rebuilding and catchup to those teams. The best scenarios for the Pacers to rebuild are through young players, taking risk on "potential" player, and through the draft. Why not suffering maybe 1 or 2 year of losing, and maybe getting lucky and end up with a young franchise player through the draft while still having Bynum, Iko, and Granger as your core? And the best way to rebuild is through a center.

                Like I said, Pacers lose nothing if Bynum ends up a bust. At least you guys get a year earlier in your rebuilding process. If your team think they can still compete for championship or if you think JO would be happy coming back for the Pacers after hearing his name bouncing around like a ping pong, uhhh think again! The JO experience is over.
                Wow...just wow. Excuse us for wanting to win here in Cornville, USA. I see now why we should just ship all our talent so that Paris Hilton and Jack Nicholson don't have to be bored.

                Are you really trying to say that LA NEEDS or, worse, DESERVES to win more than Indiana?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                  A prime example of the "Entitlement" attitude that makes the Lakers the most hated team in the league. I'd rather do a trade with Isaiah Thomas and the Knicks than to help the Lakers one iota.

                  But thank you for reminding me of that fact. You deserve Kobe and he deserves you.
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                    Wow...just wow. Excuse us for wanting to win here in Cornville, USA. I see now why we should just ship all our talent so that Paris Hilton and Jack Nicholson don't have to be bored.

                    Are you really trying to say that LA NEEDS or, worse, DESERVES to win more than Indiana?
                    No but look, both are benefit from this deal. Lakers take a risk on JO, anything less than a championship with Kobe/JO/LO is a failure. The Pacers take a risk on their rebuilding process. Neither sides win if no deal are made. But I slightly give the favor to the Lakers (NOT because I'm a Lakers fan) but look at the general, overall picture in the future. Lakers always have a lot of options because this is LA, meanwhile Indiana is just another basketball city. Like I said, I'm not trying to disrespect your team but I'm speaking the true. The only way Indiana gets any NBA recognition is if they are a contention which they're far beyond not at this point. Like I said, the Pacers need to rebuild while the Lakers need to take a risk on giving up the future to win it all now or it's failure.

                    Your team don't need to make a deal with us. Well not like we want to but in order to keep Kobe happy and build a contention NOW, which is why we even talking to the Pacers at this point. If we somehow get KG, and Paul Gasol, we can really kiss JO goodbye and hope you guys end up rebuilding around yeah Jefferson and Krstic. Still two very good players, but not a player that you ask to um...win championship or build a contention around. At least, Bynum is a legitimate center that can be build a championship around.

                    If you haven't notice, Bynum had a huge improving this year compare to last year. I mean HUGE. He bulked up and his game in the post was solid. However due to Kobe wanting to win now, sadly Bynum has to go. As a Lakers fan, if we can't build a contention now, I'm willing to let Kobe go and build around Bynum. But unfortunately whenever you have a talented player like Kobe, you gotta build around him. It is just the right thing to do.

                    As for your team, getting rid of JO is the correct step whether taking our offer or someone else. Again, the best thing the Pacers should do now is rebuilding and aiming for the future rather than now because right now they have NO future.

                    What I say might not be the thing you guys want to hear, but I'm telling the truth. Sometime the truth hurt, but I'm sorry. Your team can get away with being mediocre, but our team just can't. Which is why the right step for the Pacer is to rebuild while us taking risk to compete now.

                    At the end of the day, if neither side make a deal. I just believe it hurts the Pacers more than us, because we always have that guy to rebuild around ==>Bynum. But you guys? Who? Granger? Even if Granger turns out to be a 20/10, his impact won't be the same as Bynum 20/10.
                    Last edited by The_Showtime; 06-30-2007, 07:17 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                      Would you take Bynum and stuff for JO, if JO was already a Laker and Bynum was a Pacer? That is the question I'm going to start asking other fans.

                      From now on anytime anyone says well you should do this or that, they should think hmmmmm, would I do that if it was my team giving up an allstar for the #9 pick from 2 years ago. Would you give up trade Jefferson and Krstic if they were Pacers, hell ya, in a second. Would you give up Bynum for JO if Bynum was a Pacer, hell ya. It just puts some perspective on it for me.

                      Its funny what such good deals these are until you think about the reverse of it.

                      If the answer is yes from the first question, then how about Granger, Ike, and Shawne Williams for Kobe?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                        Originally posted by Speed View Post
                        Would you take Bynum and stuff for JO, if JO was already a Laker and Bynum was a Pacer? That is the question I'm going to start asking other fans.

                        From now on anytime anyone says well you should do this or that, they should think hmmmmm, would I do that if it was my team giving up an allstar for the #9 pick from 2 years ago. Would you give up trade Jefferson and Krstic if they were Pacers, hell ya, in a second. Would you give up Bynum for JO if Bynum was a Pacer, hell ya. It just puts some perspective on it for me.

                        Its funny what such good deals these are until you think about the reverse of it.

                        If the answer is yes from the first question, then how about Granger, Ike, and Shawne Williams for Kobe?
                        If I"m a Pacers fan, I'm rooting for the Pacers to rebuild as quickly as possible. I'll try to trade for a center even if all he has is the "potential" and get cap relief and try to dump toxic contracts as much as possible. No fans want their team to rebuild but that is the best thing to do at this point. Pacers really have no future with that kinds of unmovable contract of Dun/Murphy. Of course the Lakers offer of Bynum/Brown/Filler is NOT fair (You can't expect to get fair value when you trade a all-star), but I gotta think for my team future. Suffering for a few years of losing and maybe end up happy in the end.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                          Right and since the offer is not fair, then there is absolutely no reason to throw more bad moves after already made bad moves, whoever the team.

                          The Lakers aren't in position of power thanks to Kobe, its not really the Pacers who have to make an unfair move, its moreso the Lakers and the league knows this.

                          Of course, can attract better free agents, but not if they don't have cap room (which they won't ever as long as Kobe is there) or a team willing to help them. And it is in the League best interest to have a good team in LA, but not the other 29 teams, they have to look out for their own interests. Look at NY.

                          I go back to the reverse deal thing and in this case its not even close. It leaves the Pacers HOPING that Bynum becomes a 3 team all NBA player and that is a reach for anyone to convince me of.

                          This whole thing comes from Kobe having his feelings hurt cuz no one was being his "witness".
                          Last edited by Speed; 06-30-2007, 07:47 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            Right and since the offer is not fair, then there is absolutely no reason to throw more bad moves after already made bad moves, whoever the team.

                            The Lakers aren't in position of power thanks to Kobe, its not really the Pacers who have to make an unfair move, its moreso the Lakers and the league knows this.

                            Of course, can attract better free agents, but not if they don't have cap room (which they won't ever as long as Kobe is there) or a team willing to help them. And it is in the League best interest to have a good team in LA, but not the other 29 teams, they have to look out for their own interests. Look at NY.

                            I go back to the reverse deal thing and in this case its not even close. It leaves the Pacers HOPING that Bynum becomes a 3 team all NBA player and that is a reach for anyone to convince me of.

                            This whole thing comes from Kobe having his feelings hurt cuz no one was being his "witness".
                            I don't get why Pacers fan still think Lakers are at a disadvantage position in this JO's trade. They are not! I am convince Dr. Buss (Lakers' owner) willing to give up the future for a chance to win it all, but he also are willing to give up on Kobe if Lakers end up getting nothing this offseason. I don't think you guys kind of understand, history said nobody get a fair value whenever you trade a superstar. Looked at the Shaq's trade or AI, we're get absolutely nothing. We are from contender to becoming a pretender in a flash of second. You guys have a chance to rebuild now, on a CENTER who has potential to produce 20/10. Do you realize, Bynum at one point averages 13/8 when he gets around 20-30min per game? All of his production are decreasing due to the returning of Kwame Brown. He lost his focus. But this is just some sign of him being young and not ready to compete at a high level.

                            Again, Pacers might not get a fair value with us or actually with anyone, but the best thing to do at this point is rebuild. And whenever you rebuild, you rebuild around a legitimate center, not some hybrid center like Krstic or Omer Okur. From your Pacers stand, it is obviously not a good move to trade JO for Bynum, but eventually it pays out due to the fact that you guy end up with a potential center while dumping that huge contract. If you guy acquiring LO along with Bynum, it doesn't make sense for the rebuilding plan. Would you rather have your team getting into the playoff, and get low draft pick or suffer a losing season and end up with a lottery draft pick? That is my friend, what I really want to hear from a Pacers fan standpoint.

                            Personally, if I'm the Pacers fan, I choose to lose or maybe even tank to get that #1 to add into the rebuilding plan of Bynum/Granger/Ik.

                            Of course Pacers don't necessaily need to make trade with us, but it is best trade deal available if they plan on rebuilding. Having Bynum & salary cap filler is all you guys really need, except uh...you guys looking to get something big in return for JO which won't happening given the circumstance that at this point of JO's career and his contract, not many teams want to touch it.
                            Last edited by The_Showtime; 06-30-2007, 08:24 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                              I guess my thing is this, Odom, Meh. Bynum, Meh. I'd rather have high draft picks, which LA doesn't have. There's a better deal out there for Indiana in my opinion, alot better deal, if you choose to rebuild, alot better deal if you choose to revamp and make a run.

                              LA, however, unless they can get Garnett, they won't find a better player, imo.

                              Kobe is disgruntled, he has asked for a trade, its public. The Pacers have been there, its no fun.

                              If the Lakers aren't in a position of desperation or disadvantage then stay the course. I would let Kobe go into next season with the team intact, see how that goes. THAT would be interesting to watch.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                                Interesting thread.

                                A Laker trade -- who for whom -- should depend on two factors:

                                1. Bynum -- What is the considered probability he will be an all-star player? No one knows for sure. IMO, that probability is high enough to go get him, take the risk. I think Bird/Donnie and the scouts believe that also.

                                2. Odom -- He's a good player. The questions are, is he worth a star backcourt player to another team, in trade? Is he worth signing to an extension and keep in Indy? Will he be "happy" here? Does Odom here take away P.T. from Danny, Ike, Shawne, et. al., and either create a problem or make someone expendable? IMO, the answer with respect to Odom is, happily, that it does not matter. If Odom is worth getting and keeping (or trading), then do so, and trade one or more of our other forwards to LA (Granger) to get him. If not, then forget him, let L.A. keep him, and focus on getting "equal" value in other forms: Critt or Farmar, a future #1, Kwame, etc., Walton (?), etc.

                                Jermaine is an all-star, true. However, he has more value to a team with a legit superstar (which JO is not) than he does to Indiana. We must capture that "more value" in a way that makes sense for us, makes us better. Plus, he has a killer-bad contract. Those are the reasons to deal JO, for sure.

                                So ... Get Bynum. Get Odom if it makes sense. Trade Granger if necessary to get Odom. Get one of LA's young PG's. Get Kwame. Get a future #1 if possible. Trade Jermaine, for sure.

                                If I were king, and if LO would be "happy" here (with or without an extension), then I would offer a package of [Jermaine, Murphy (or Tinsley if Murph does not fly), and Granger] for a package of [Bynum, Odom, Critt or Farmar (I'd take Critt), Kwame, and a future #1] + filler either way to make it work.

                                Or some variant thereof.

                                If LO would not be "happy" here or not "fit" here, then I'd still do a deal, either trading LO to a 3rd team for a quality guard or dropping him from the deal entirely, keeping Granger, and focus on obtaining "equal value" which would include clearing cap space.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X