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

Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

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

  • #16
    Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

    Originally posted by sig View Post
    I don't think Cheaney was a bust. He never made it to all star level play but he had a few productive years in Wiz/Bullet land.

    Morrison is not a bust yet. He had an OK rookie year. Pure shooters like him, Redick, Korver usually need some adjustment time.

    Many have Tucker and Afflalo going in round 2. I wouldn't consider any round 2 pick a bust.

    Sean Williams has been a knucklehead. Kicked off his college team and busted for pot.
    i thought the same thing about cheaney but really a pick as high as he was is supposed to be an allstar or a great player. i don't think you can categorize calbert as a great pro. good first part of his career and then destroyed by injuries for a few years in boston and denver. mini resurgence in utah and then dwindled in golden state. had he been a late 1st round, would have probably lived up to expectations.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

      2 Additional Profiles of a Bust

      #1


      #2

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

        Originally posted by sig View Post
        Many have Tucker and Afflalo going in round 2. I wouldn't consider any round 2 pick a bust.
        These two guys and Brandon Rush are all going to be very solid pros. Not sure why people sleep on proven, savvy talent because of ridiculous workouts.

        These guys are basketball players and each has a very polished all-around game. That translates to the League.

        I guarantee at least one of these three makes an All Star appearance within 5-6 years. They're all in the Caron Butler/Paul Pierce model of guys who will never blow you away in a work out, but can just flat out BALL.

        It's times like this when players this talented are falling this far that I wish we didn't already have 37 small forwards on our roster.
        Read my Pacers blog:
        8points9seconds.com

        Follow my twitter:

        @8pts9secs

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

          I agree that the examples could have been better, but I loved the descriptions. Really cracked me up.
          The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
          RSS Feed
          Subscribe via iTunes

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Wow...what's this guy's beef against Sean Williams?

            Just to be clear here, he is not talking about our Shawne, but rather a player out of BC.
            Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
            http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

              Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
              So, I take it we should avoid Al Thornton.

              Now, before a draft-hater gets his sarcasm on and says "I thought everybody in the draft was gonna be an HOF'er", this article actually backs up what some of us have said. Yes, there are busts every year. But a smart GM can avoid them. Seems like GS drafts an Adonal Foyle every other year, but they never learn their lesson.

              Also, note that their question marks are mostly guys further down. Usually the question marks end up late lottery, this year they'll be late first round. For example, he makes very good points about Alondo Tucker. I'd never take him with a mid 1st. But he's certainly worth the gamble with a 2nd.
              Well I basically agree with you if you are admitting that really a 19 pick this year is not much different than 19 any year. Any year can be a better or worse draft, but by the time you get out of the top 10 (5 even usually) it's pretty RISKY.

              That's why you don't use the draft as a STRATEGY. It's a lucky dog bail out chance, but you can't COUNT on it like it's a real plan. I realize that an FA might not sign, that a trade might not happen, and that players can get hurt.

              But dealing with a known quantity and putting your team into a position where a great pick can take you farther BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO SAVE YOU is the way to a great team.

              Sure Utah looks nice with Deron, but they also did things like go after Boozer. The Suns drafted some great players, but Steve Nash part 2 is also on their roster. The Mavs? They've dealt and cut and signed all around that team...which leads Finley right to the Spurs for yet another example.


              The top picks are usually for team that are 20-62 and are perhaps so screwed up that their ONLY hope is the draft. You never want to drive your team toward that direction, even in a "deep" draft like this.

              Some quality picks draft night are going to look like duds in a couple of year. Yes, even this draft. And two 2nd round steals won't make that less true, and neither will 4 of the top 6 becoming AS caliber players.

              Having a pick vs having nothing, sure I'll take a pick. It's like a free lottery ticket, what the heck. But if my financial advisor says he sold all the stock so he could invest in lottery tickets, then we have a problem. And I don't care how good he thinks the odds are. *



              * caveat being if the payouts have been low and the remaining prizes far excede the cost of the remaining tickets, then it's actually a non-gamble smart investment to buy everything left. And even that backfired on some guys who sued the lottery because of it.






              I do agree that no one watches Yi and thinks Yao. As I've said before he's more like Baston with better all-around skills (ball handling, speed/quickness, jumping). That could be enough to make him a great player, but not a back to the basket kind of guy. Even as a shot blocker he'd be a lot closer to Camby than Yao (though he's not that level of defender at all as far as I can tell).
              Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-18-2007, 12:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                Hey Seth, don't forget that you get to basically enslave draft picks for three years at a ridiculously low salary (if they are good).

                The Heat loaded up with expensive veterans since Dwayne Wade was so cheap, Deron Williams helps offset all the pricey guys in Utah, Tayshaun Prince filled out a loaded starting 5 with a cheap salary, etc.

                Not a huge deal, but rookies who are good right away are the most effcient players you can have (in a ability-to-cash ratio). In the salary cap era, that can be important.
                Last edited by FlavaDave; 06-18-2007, 02:01 PM.
                The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                RSS Feed
                Subscribe via iTunes

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                  I think he covered every single pick in this years draft other than Oden and Durant as "possible busts."

                  Oh, and something else really REALLY bothered me about the article. (this is something I have to say everytime I see it.)


                  SHAWN RESPERT WAS NOT A BUST! He got freaking colon cancer and had to retire. He chose to keep the reason close to him, he didn't even tell his parents, but has since publicly stated that it was infact cancer in several different articles. I have posted them before, and can/will again if anyone would like me too. But using him as an example is just plain wrong, and shows the inability to do research.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                    he didn't mention nick young... which obviously means i'm totally right about him
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      SHAWN RESPERT WAS NOT A BUST! He got freaking colon cancer and had to retire. He chose to keep the reason close to him, he didn't even tell his parents, but has since publicly stated that it was infact cancer in several different articles. I have posted them before, and can/will again if anyone would like me too. But using him as an example is just plain wrong, and shows the inability to do research.
                      Agreed. This is well known.

                      Prettiest jumper of all time. Kid was water.
                      Read my Pacers blog:
                      8points9seconds.com

                      Follow my twitter:

                      @8pts9secs

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                        Adam Morrison is a bust? Rreally? A first year bust? I can't take this guy seriously ANYMORE.
                        STARBURY

                        08 and Beyond

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                          Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                          Hey Seth, don't forget that you get to basically enslave draft picks for three years at a ridiculously low salary (if they are good).

                          The Heat loaded up with expensive veterans since Dwayne Wade was so cheap, Deron Williams helps offset all the pricey guys in Utah, Tayshaun Prince filled out a loaded starting 5 with a cheap salary, etc.

                          Not a huge deal, but rookies who are good right away are the most effcient players you can have (in a ability-to-cash ratio). In the salary cap era, that can be important.
                          True. I'm not saying a nice pick isn't a HUGE help to your team. I'm saying COUNTING ON IT is a big mistake. That's why you don't truly build through the draft. If anything teams trade picks to get better than simply draft for 5 years and become great.

                          Just look at the Bobcats. The theory that the draft is this haven of turnaround is disproven right there. They have nothing but top picks, and at all spots. Felton, Okafur, May, Morrison. Heck, they even got a nice young prospect in Primoz and 2 solid vets for the backcourt that both play strong defense (Wallace, Knight).

                          By the "draft rebuild" philosophy they should have won the East last year.

                          The Spurs did draft Duncan, Manu and Parker, but of course Manu and Parker were both deep picks, neither were insta-stars, and they certainly aren't enjoying the benefits of having any of them on a cheap rookie deal anymore ($35m for just those 3 this year, close to the JO/Troy/Dun cost).

                          Finley, Barry, Bowen - not their picks or even within a few seasons of being drafted when joining SA. They were the next 3 critical guys on that team, along with Horry. They got them cheaper because no one cared at the time or with Finley because he'd been exempted out of Dallas which made him cheap for SA.

                          Being able to find those kinds of deals, guys for 3-5 million (not on a rookie deal) that make a big impact, and having a strong coach. That to me is how you rebuild for sure. Certainly a top pick will help, but you don't need it.

                          The Pistons proved exactly this by building the same way, with also-rans that came cheaper than their actual production (Rip, CB, Ben, even Sheed due to his own cap cut/deal).

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                            I think the main point here is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. The question is, which method is most reliable? Which has the greatest return? What can we stomach?
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                              I don't necessarily disagree with Seth, but I do like to argue. The Pacers are the type of team, mostly due to their location, that isn't in a position to attract big names thru free agency. If they look to be on the verge of something special that's a different story, but when in a rebuilding mode or floundering mode many vets aren't going to put them at the top of their list. Look at the finals team.

                              Jalen Rose (aquired thru trade)
                              Reggie Miller (11th pick)
                              Rik Smits (2nd pick)
                              Austin Croshere (11th pick)
                              Dale Davis (13th pick)
                              Travis Best (23rd pick)
                              Mark Jackson ( thru trade)
                              Sam Perkins ( thru trade)
                              Al Harrington (25th pick)
                              Chris Mullin ( thru Trade)
                              Derrick McKey ( thru trade)

                              Those are the major players that year. Of those 11 guys 4 were Pacer lottery picks, 2 were later 1st rounders and 5 were aquired thru trades. Mullin, Al & McKey's playing time was limited. So of the 8 major players from that season 5 were the Pacer's own draft picks and 4 of those were lottery picks.

                              For the sake of this arguement, trade=not drafted by the Pacer's.
                              Last edited by Dr. Goldfoot; 06-19-2007, 10:46 AM. Reason: last sentence
                              I'm in these bands
                              The Humans
                              Dr. Goldfoot
                              The Bar Brawlers
                              ME

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Draft Express: 8 Common Profiles of a Bust

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                True. I'm not saying a nice pick isn't a HUGE help to your team. I'm saying COUNTING ON IT is a big mistake. That's why you don't truly build through the draft. If anything teams trade picks to get better than simply draft for 5 years and become great.

                                Just look at the Bobcats. The theory that the draft is this haven of turnaround is disproven right there. They have nothing but top picks, and at all spots. Felton, Okafur, May, Morrison. Heck, they even got a nice young prospect in Primoz and 2 solid vets for the backcourt that both play strong defense (Wallace, Knight).

                                By the "draft rebuild" philosophy they should have won the East last year.

                                The Spurs did draft Duncan, Manu and Parker, but of course Manu and Parker were both deep picks, neither were insta-stars, and they certainly aren't enjoying the benefits of having any of them on a cheap rookie deal anymore ($35m for just those 3 this year, close to the JO/Troy/Dun cost).

                                Finley, Barry, Bowen - not their picks or even within a few seasons of being drafted when joining SA. They were the next 3 critical guys on that team, along with Horry. They got them cheaper because no one cared at the time or with Finley because he'd been exempted out of Dallas which made him cheap for SA.

                                Being able to find those kinds of deals, guys for 3-5 million (not on a rookie deal) that make a big impact, and having a strong coach. That to me is how you rebuild for sure. Certainly a top pick will help, but you don't need it.

                                The Pistons proved exactly this by building the same way, with also-rans that came cheaper than their actual production (Rip, CB, Ben, even Sheed due to his own cap cut/deal).
                                Why are you using the Spurs as an example against building through the draft? If anything, they're proof that one great pick can turn your entire franchise around. You do realize the Spurs dynasty revolves around 1 man, right? The consensus #1 pick in the 1997 NBA Draft, Tim Duncan. He was a champion when NBA fans had no idea who Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili were, and Bruce Bowen was still riding the pine in Bean Town. Sure Parker and Manu have been huge factors in their past 3 titles, but it still revolves around Duncan. There are at least half a dozen players who could replace each of Parker and Manu. I'm not sure if there's a single one who could replace Timmy. As for guys like Finley, Barry, Horry etc., sure they're helpful, but first and foremost you find your championship-caliber franchise player (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Dwight, Amare, etc.). And more often than not, those guys are found via the lottery. They're almost never found via trades.

                                As for the Bobcats, give them time. You do realize their starting line up was 22, 22, 24, 24, and the old man of the group, Primoz at the ripe old age of 27. So you expect a team that's been in existence for a whopping 3 years, who's starting lineup has an average age of 23 (the age of many rookies) to be dominating the East? Wow. That's all I can say to that. That's just ridiculous in my opinion.

                                Here's the Bobcats records in each of their 3 seasons of existence....

                                2004-05 18 64 .220
                                2005-06 26 56 .317
                                2006-07 33 49 .402

                                As you can see, they're clearly on the rise. At this rate, they'll be a .500 team and in the playoffs next season with their starting lineup averaging only 24 years of age. Will we be a playoff team next year, with our not-old-but-not-young, over the cap roster? I doubt it. And imagine how good the Bobcats will be in say, 2-3 years, when their youngsters improve? A contender? With proper player development and a big FA signing, I'd say it's definitely possible. And let's not forget they also have the 8th pick in this years draft to add to their roster, as well as a ton of cap-space to sign key additions to the roster. They're in a lot better shape than the current Pacers team is, that's for sure.

                                Rebuilding through the draft = Proven Success

                                Rebuilding any other way = Proven Failure, unless you get lucky
                                Last edited by Y2J; 06-19-2007, 11:54 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X