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

Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

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

  • Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

    A deal where we bring in a Brand, a Camby, or someone like that makes much more sense if the Pacers were .500 or a couple games over alreayd. Even adding someone like Brand and Camby to this team would probably only push us to the 7 or 8 spot. And with the concerns over Brand's injury, and the fact that Camby is getting up there in age are they really worth what we'd have to give up to get them?

    I do think the Pacers have the ability to be both active and make a deal that improves the team both now and in the future at the deadline, but I think it is much more likely we go after a young big man with a lot of potential.



  • #2
    Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

    I think it is because good big men are hard to find and the young ones need time to develop. I myself would be ok with an older big man on the cheap but also get another big man to develop. We have hibby at the five spot, but we need another young at the four spot to develop. I am not saying finance it with them farm, but look to the upcoming draft as the starting point.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

      Who are these young big men everyone wants to get? Since when do teams let go of talented young big men for role players? The truth is we don't have great pieces to offer anybody in a trade even if there was one available. We have some expiring contracts, a bunch of overpaid guys, a few solid role players, and a few rookies who have yet to show much on an NBA floor and Danny Granger. So unless you want to offer Granger in a package for someone like Bosh, you don't have many options.

      It's all a gamble. You could trade for some young big man and he never works out or gets hurt. You can try and build through the draft and your picks wind up busts. You can sign a free agent who goes Shaun Livingston the first game out. You can't let those things scare you.

      Also, Elton Brand is just about to turn 29 years old. Regardless of what people have said on here, he has been very durable. Most of those people don't even know that his injury was an achilles. Achilles injuries are not as nearly as dangerous as a knee injury. He has played pretty well so far this year. He hasn't been his old self, but not far from it. And there are many other reasons you could point to. Lack of shooters to spread the floor, blending in with new team mates, learning a new offense, etc. Sure the injury has played a part, but how many players would be their old self right away after sitting out a year? His talent hasn't left him, and his injury hasn't debilitated him. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to average 15 and 10 considering all these factors.

      If Brand regains his old form, and I think he will, we would have gotten a steal and have a very good big man just barely in his prime to pair with Granger who is nearly the same age. He has great character, is a team player and plays both ends. He also has been one of the best rebounders in the league throughout his career. That to me sounds a lot less risky than waiting on some team to offer you a young unproven big man, who they have already given up on enough to let him go for cheap, and hoping he turns into a player.
      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

        Taterhead
        Who are these young big men everyone wants to get? Since when do teams let go of talented young big men for role players?
        Great question. I have no problem going after a young big, but who's available that can be had? I understand questioning the rationale of a veteran big, but then who might we target amongst younger guys at the position via trade? Via the draft seems much more likely, but aren't we talking trade here?Ultimately, I don't particularly care how we address the needs, but the defensive (perimeter, interior) needs are painfully obvious.

        I also still think the jury is very much out on HIbbert and Rush in the area of future development. I'm still thinking their most likely projection is reliable second unit guys, although they could certainly surprise me. So I don't think they significantly answer or short term defensive shortcomings. The help in that area needs to be immediate, not long-term project. Admittedly, both our current rooks might benefit from a different style of play.
        I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

        -Emiliano Zapata

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

          Originally posted by D-BONE View Post

          I also still think the jury is very much out on HIbbert and Rush in the area of future development. I'm still thinking their most likely projection is reliable second unit guys, although they could certainly surprise me.
          I think Hibbert can be a reliable starter - just not in JOB's system (or D'Antoni's just so nobody thinks I'm lobbying for a trade). I agree on Rush - unless he becomes an outstanding, lock-down type defender I see him as a 7th-8th man.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

            I personally don't want Brand here, but some interior D is badly needed around here. If for nothing else, it will at least give some of the fans the idea that management is as committed to winning as the players are. I am sure the Simons would love to sell some more tickets....Of course one could imply that the Simons should've/could've been doing something long ago.
            "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

              Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
              I think it is because good big men are hard .
              Flannery O'Connor concurs.
              You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                Indy's point is that these guys are more like finishing pieces than building blocks. While a risk of this type probably will be necessary at some point, it would probably be premature for the Pacers right now. They are simply too far away from contending to maximize the benefits of these guys.

                Camby is a good defender with an OK contract, but it's difficult to characterize him as a game changer.

                Brand, who may have the talent to help this team, also is far more problematic. While he's been largely durable over his career, he has had two different significant injuries over the past two seasons. Last year, his achilles cost him 74 of 82 games. This season, a shoulder injury has cost him 18 of his team's 46 games, and significantly hampered his effectiveness. In January, he's only averaging 7 points and 5 boards a night and has been very inconsistent.

                Also, while he's only 29, it is important to recognize that he's in his 10th season in the NBA. Like with a car, it ain't the age, it's the mileage. While it's possible that he's still in his prime, it's far more likely that he's closer to the end of his prime than to the beginning.

                Finally, and most disconcerting, is the fact that he's owed $66 million over the four seasons following this one. This would be a mistake that would be difficult to unmake. I have no idea if Philly is actually trying to move him, but, if they are, it would mean they considered his signing a mistake. That would be the first one, but they'll likely be able to find suitors for Brand because of the reasons people around here find him attractive. However, if the team that takes comes to learn that it was a mistake, for injuries, chemistry, whatever, then Brand simply becomes a bad contract. Keep in mind that Elton Brand has played on exactly one winning team over the course of his career. It is prudent to be worried about the Pacers' ability to survive another mistake of such magnitude.

                Additionally, there is a certain whimsy to the nature of these "let's get so-and-so" suggestions. They rarely, if ever, fully address the salary and luxury tax implications. They rarely, if ever, provide the rationale for why Philly (or the other team) would be interested in our assets. They rarely, if ever, discuss what marketable assets we have. They rarely, if ever, discuss how the new player will fit into the team, now and in the future.

                I don't wish to put words in Indy's mouth, I think that he believes that we'd be wiser looking to the draft for a Jordan Hill, Patrick Patterson, or Gani Lawal. I can't speak comprehensively on any of those guys, but they are listed as top PF prospects.

                I also wonder if he, like I, thinks that a back-to-the-basket player like Brand is not necessarily the perfect fit here. It is my opinion that this team is in less need of a post game than a post/interior defender. In my mind's eye, the ideal is a Dale Davis or a Charles Oakley. A latter day Cliff Robinson would be a nice fit, IMO, as well.

                It's not that Indy, or I, wouldn't like to have a talent like Elton Brand. It's just that we struggle to understand why there is a constant, almost reflexive reaction to league news that we should "get that guy," yet there is almost never any apparent learning curve towards articulating the approach, costs, and benefits of actually trying to get him. In effect, the Brand conversation becomes the Bosh conversation becomes the Landry conversation becomes the John Doe conversation. Only the names have been changed to protect the (not-so) innocent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                  I like the idea of Camby more than Brand because Camby's contract is shorter. I would rather see the Pacers make a trade for a veteran than younger, inexperienced player.

                  I feel like a younger player would not be a progressive step for this franchise. The team already has youth: Hibbert, Rush, McRoberts, and yes, Granger is young too. What this team is missing is the Sam Perkins, the Byron Scott, the Chris Mullin, etc. as well as a solid power forward that can defend the interior and rebound the basketball like a machine. I'm not sure that trading for a young big would address the teams needs any more than the current roster is addressing the needs. We have youth. We also have a first and second round pick in the 2009 draft to continue to add more youth to the team.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                    Originally posted by sloopjohnb View Post
                    I like the idea of Camby more than Brand because Camby's contract is shorter. I would rather see the Pacers make a trade for a veteran than younger, inexperienced player.

                    I feel like a younger player would not be a progressive step for this franchise. The team already has youth: Hibbert, Rush, McRoberts, and yes, Granger is young too. What this team is missing is the Sam Perkins, the Byron Scott, the Chris Mullin, etc. as well as a solid power forward that can defend the interior and rebound the basketball like a machine. I'm not sure that trading for a young big would address the teams needs any more than the current roster is addressing the needs. We have youth. We also have a first and second round pick in the 2009 draft to continue to add more youth to the team.
                    I don't disagree with the veteran angle, I'm just not sure the franchise has the assets to draw one, or can afford the throw $66+mm into the kitty.

                    Joe Smith's name was kicked around earlier this year, and I think that's a decent fit.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                      After watching Uconn and Louisville last night I think Thabeet will be a much better defender
                      and rebounder than Hibbert. He is just a better player. But he will be gone long before the
                      Pacers pick in the upcoming draft unless they get lucky in the lottery or via trade.
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                        Originally posted by Indy View Post
                        A deal where we bring in a Brand, a Camby, or someone like that makes much more sense if the Pacers were .500 or a couple games over alreayd. Even adding someone like Brand and Camby to this team would probably only push us to the 7 or 8 spot. And with the concerns over Brand's injury, and the fact that Camby is getting up there in age are they really worth what we'd have to give up to get them?

                        I do think the Pacers have the ability to be both active and make a deal that improves the team both now and in the future at the deadline, but I think it is much more likely we go after a young big man with a lot of potential.
                        Brand and Camby are in totally different situations because of their contracts. To me it makes complete sense to go after Camby, but Brand is much more of a gamble. Camby is a veteran big with a short contract. If we could get him fairly cheaply and he pushed us into the playoffs, it would be worth it. You have to take playoff revenues into account. I think getting a share of playoff revenues is worth far more to a franchise that's losing money than the few draft slots that we may save by not making a move.

                        I'd love to see us go after a young big with potential, but I just don't see any that are available, though if Bosh was available I'd give up everything short of Danny to get him.
                        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                        - Salman Rushdie

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                          Going to the title of the thread, the reason everyone thinks the Pacers should go after players is because their overall talent level sucks. You get past Granger and you can argue that every other player would be a reserve on a good team.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            Indy's point is that these guys are more like finishing pieces than building blocks. While a risk of this type probably will be necessary at some point, it would probably be premature for the Pacers right now. They are simply too far away from contending to maximize the benefits of these guys.

                            Camby is a good defender with an OK contract, but it's difficult to characterize him as a game changer.

                            Brand, who may have the talent to help this team, also is far more problematic. While he's been largely durable over his career, he has had two different significant injuries over the past two seasons. Last year, his achilles cost him 74 of 82 games. This season, a shoulder injury has cost him 18 of his team's 46 games, and significantly hampered his effectiveness. In January, he's only averaging 7 points and 5 boards a night and has been very inconsistent.

                            Also, while he's only 29, it is important to recognize that he's in his 10th season in the NBA. Like with a car, it ain't the age, it's the mileage. While it's possible that he's still in his prime, it's far more likely that he's closer to the end of his prime than to the beginning.

                            Finally, and most disconcerting, is the fact that he's owed $66 million over the four seasons following this one. This would be a mistake that would be difficult to unmake. I have no idea if Philly is actually trying to move him, but, if they are, it would mean they considered his signing a mistake. That would be the first one, but they'll likely be able to find suitors for Brand because of the reasons people around here find him attractive. However, if the team that takes comes to learn that it was a mistake, for injuries, chemistry, whatever, then Brand simply becomes a bad contract. Keep in mind that Elton Brand has played on exactly one winning team over the course of his career. It is prudent to be worried about the Pacers' ability to survive another mistake of such magnitude.

                            Additionally, there is a certain whimsy to the nature of these "let's get so-and-so" suggestions. They rarely, if ever, fully address the salary and luxury tax implications. They rarely, if ever, provide the rationale for why Philly (or the other team) would be interested in our assets. They rarely, if ever, discuss what marketable assets we have. They rarely, if ever, discuss how the new player will fit into the team, now and in the future.

                            I don't wish to put words in Indy's mouth, I think that he believes that we'd be wiser looking to the draft for a Jordan Hill, Patrick Patterson, or Gani Lawal. I can't speak comprehensively on any of those guys, but they are listed as top PF prospects.

                            I also wonder if he, like I, thinks that a back-to-the-basket player like Brand is not necessarily the perfect fit here. It is my opinion that this team is in less need of a post game than a post/interior defender. In my mind's eye, the ideal is a Dale Davis or a Charles Oakley. A latter day Cliff Robinson would be a nice fit, IMO, as well.

                            It's not that Indy, or I, wouldn't like to have a talent like Elton Brand. It's just that we struggle to understand why there is a constant, almost reflexive reaction to league news that we should "get that guy," yet there is almost never any apparent learning curve towards articulating the approach, costs, and benefits of actually trying to get him. In effect, the Brand conversation becomes the Bosh conversation becomes the Landry conversation becomes the John Doe conversation. Only the names have been changed to protect the (not-so) innocent.

                            Your post was an enjoyable read. Everytime some player is "supposedly" available there immediately is a cry to get that player. Mortgage the farm if necessary to get that said player. It reminds me of 2 years ago when it was said Philly was interested in trading Iverson. The call went out from the hinderland to get Iverson. Philly put the parameters of wanting draft picks, expirings, and a good player in return. It made no difference what Philly wanted b/c those Pacers fans that wanted Iverson weren't listening. They didn't see the Pacers not having the assets Philly said they wanted. All they could see was putting an allstar with JO. It was the answer to becoming a real powerhouse. Even after the trade with Denver was completed, there were some who boohooed about the Pacers not getting AI. They still refused to accept or understand the Pacers didn't have what Philly said they wanted in order to do a deal. I don't think to this day they still understand. I for one don't ever believe Granger would be the player he is today if some people's wants of getting Iverson had come to fruiition. I never wanted Iverson, and am quite thankful he never became a Pacer. I was fine that he got traded to Denver where he never took the Nuggets anywhere, and I'm more than elated he's now in Detroit working all his greatness. Brand has a terrible contract and has injury issues. The Pacers have already had enough of both. JMOAA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why does everyone think the Pacers should go after Brand et. al.?

                              Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                              Brand and Camby are in totally different situations because of their contracts. To me it makes complete sense to go after Camby, but Brand is much more of a gamble. Camby is a veteran big with a short contract. If we could get him fairly cheaply and he pushed us into the playoffs, it would be worth it.
                              Good point. This is my feeling, as well. I'm not too hot on Brand, but I'd be very interested in Camby, or even Joe Smith for that matter. Bosh is enticing, but I find it hard to believe we'd have what's needed to make it happen.
                              I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                              -Emiliano Zapata

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X