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

Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...tTrends-090706

    David Lee is better than Jason Kidd, but you'd never know it from their contract talks this summer. Despite averaging a double-double while shooting 54.9 percent from the floor, Lee ultimately may be forced to take a qualifying offer to play for barely more than the biannual exception.
    On the other hand, Kidd turned down a hefty offer from Lee's current employer because he got a better one from Dallas, one that would pay him about 12 times as much as Lee's qualifying offer -- which is still the only concrete one Lee is known to have received.

    Those two examples sum up everything you need to know about the NBA free-agent market, illustrating the three defining trends of this offseason:

    1. Rumors of tightening wallets around the league have been greatly exaggerated.
    2. Contending teams in particular are locked in a massive arms race.
    3. Despite all of this, restricted free agents still can't get squat.

    Let's start at the top, because NBA owners are a funny lot.
    All through the season they pleaded poverty and talked gloom and doom about the tight wallets in the upcoming offseason. Then the offseason came, and they started spending like drunken sailors on whatever wares Charlie Villanueva or Hedo Turkoglu flaunted in the window.
    Of all summers, this was supposed to be the one in which teams began holding the line financially. Faced with declining attendance numbers and a recession so steep that it might produce the unprecedented result of a $6 million decline in the salary cap a year from now, we were warned that a looming financial Armageddon would restrict free agency to a shadow of its former self.

    Guess again. Already, moves by San Antonio, Washington, Orlando and Houston -- none of which have been huge spenders in the past -- have put them over the luxury tax for the coming season, though the Rockets may still be able to work their way under. Meanwhile, maneuvers by Dallas, Boston, Cleveland, New York and the Lakers figure to keep them well over the line, too, and it's possible the Nuggets and Heat will be joining them.
    On the other side of the coin, the only team that seems to be actively cutting salary is Milwaukee, which traded Richard Jefferson for spare parts and didn't make a qualifying offer to Villanueva. Phoenix, Utah and New Orleans could be in the same boat by the end of the summer, but at the moment those three teams also project to be well over the tax line for the coming season.

    Put it all together, and Billy Hunter has to be doing a jig right now. It's hard for the league to plead poverty when potentially 14 of its 30 teams will be going over the luxury tax threshold, giving the Players Association some much-needed ammunition heading into the next collective bargaining negotiation -- one that should begin in earnest in the coming months, since the current CBA expires in 2011. (The league has an option to extend it a year but seems likely to decline.)

    The spending stands out so much because this was supposed to be the year when teams would hold back. Given that only one current free agent played in either of the past two All-Star Games, and even that one player (Allen Iverson) comes with a massive asterisk since he was voted in by fans, this hardly seemed like the summer for a big spending spree -- especially given the potentially star-studded free-agent class available in 2010.

    Instead, teams are falling over each other to give A-list contracts to B-list players. Ben Gordon, Villanueva, Turkoglu and Kidd all agreed to deals for more than the midlevel exception. Even players with less extensive résumés (Trevor Ariza, Marcin Gortat) or more character flaws (Ron Artest, Rasheed Wallace) have been able to cash in for the full midlevel exception.
    Which takes us to our second trend, because it's the contending teams that have been driving the bus on a lot of the spending we've seen. Sure, Detroit and Toronto have taken the lead in pursuing unrestricted free agents, but dig deeper into the trade and free-agent activity, and it's the prime contenders from last season that have done the most to add payroll.
    The Spurs got it rolling by adding Jefferson in a move that put them over the luxury tax for the first time in eons, and things quickly escalated from there. The Cavs and Magic almost immediately followed with deals for Shaquille O'Neal and Vince Carter, respectively, and going into the luxury tax didn't slow their momentum one iota, either. San Antonio and Orlando both pursued Wallace, and the Cavs made a strong push for Artest; each has moved on to other targets with their midlevel exceptions.

    Another team that was already looking at paying the tax -- Boston -- won the sweepstakes for Wallace, pushing the Celtics far beyond the mark even before the possibility of re-signing restricted free agent Glen Davis. As for the defending champion Lakers, they've been one of the few beacons of fiscal sanity this summer, cutting extraneous salary at the end of last season and using their midlevel exception on Artest -- but only after waving goodbye to Ariza. Alas, even they are going to be well over the tax thanks to Andrew Bynum's extension kicking in.

    With the main players raising the ante so quickly, teams on the fringe of contention feel the need to splurge just to have a shot at contending. Detroit threw nearly $100 million at Gordon and Villanueva in hopes of regaining its perch at the top of the East, while Dallas made a similar push out West by offering a full midlevel deal to Gortat (he's expected to sign an offer sheet July 8) and re-signing Kidd to a $25 million deal. Even 19-win Washington got in the game, feeling it could threaten the East's elite with a couple of more pieces and going deep into the tax to add Mike Miller and Randy Foye.

    Of the main contenders, only Denver has been quiet thus far -- but like all the others, the Nuggets are already in tax territory and will likely go deeper if they re-sign big man Chris Andersen and use some of their midlevel exception. (Grant Hill and Channing Frye have already come up as targets.)

    Which takes us to trend No. 3. Because as much as teams are spending in pursuit of unrestricted free agents, it stands in sharp contrast to those of the restricted free agents on the market. Gortat struck a deal for an offer sheet from Dallas, but desirable commodities like Lee, Paul Millsap, Marvin Williams, Josh Childress, Ramon Sessions and Nate Robinson have barely gotten a sniff.

    Moreover, the market for those players to get anything above the midlevel exception is basically gone. Unless they can persuade one of the above teams to join in the bidding, somebody like Lee or Millsap could end up settling for the midlevel exception or playing on a one-year deal for a scandalously low qualifying offer -- $1.03 million for Millsap, $2.68 million for Lee.

    It doesn't get better for the others. Childress will likely have to head back to Greece if he can't work out a sign-and-trade with Milwaukee (it's possible, as a contract starting at $5.1 million in a sign-and-trade for Bruce Bowen and a draft pick works under the cap; the total value of a five-year deal with 10 percent raises would be $30.6 million), while Williams seems likely to play for the $7.3 million qualifier in Atlanta and try again a year from now. Robinson will likely have to leave New York and play for the midlevel exception somewhere, unless he gambles on playing for the $2.9 million qualifier and doing better next summer.

    In turn, this has to be chilling news if you're Rajon Rondo, Luis Scola, Rudy Gay, LaMarcus Aldridge, Andrea Bargnani, Ronnie Brewer or Foye, all of whom will be restricted free agents next summer if they don't sign extensions by opening day. (Brandon Roy, who is all but certain to get a maximum extension, needn't worry.) The restricted free agents in the class of '09 couldn't get a sniff of big money even in a very underwhelming free-agent market; what can they possibly expect a year from now when the likes of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Dirk Nowitzki and Amare Stoudemire could be available unrestricted?

    On the other hand, the unrestricted free agents could once again make out like bandits -- perhaps providing a carrot for the likes of Lee, Millsap and Williams to take the qualifier and play for a below-market-value price this season in hopes of recouping the difference next summer.

    One thing is for certain: The spending spree of the past five days won't do the owners any favors in the next collective bargaining agreement. But with the remaining cap space essentially dried up and several productive restricted free agents still on the market, the rest of the summer could play out quite differently.
    A "perfect storm" for players like Jack and Mac to lose much of their negotiating power:

    1) extremely poor RFA market thus far
    2) an unbelievably poor set of circumstances next year for all free agents (market saturated with stars, further drop of the salary cap)

    These circumstances would push Jack and Mac towards 3 year deals at the best salary they can get (market rate), which based on the likely signing of Bibby to MLE-level, and some of the other examples, is 3-4 for Jack and 1-1.5 for Mac.

    A really positive outcome if it evolves like this for the Pacers. Wouldn't that still provide enough to sign Dahntay Jones?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

    Bird is looking like a genius. Imagine if we wait this out until August and end up with the likes of David Lee or Paul Millsap for the MLE (if neither team wants to match, of course). The chances of these things occurring are remote at best, of course, but it gets even pessimistic me excited.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      Bird is looking like a genius. Imagine if we wait this out until August and end up with the likes of David Lee or Paul Millsap for the MLE (if neither team wants to match, of course). The chances of these things occurring are remote at best, of course, but it gets even pessimistic me excited.
      Well, yes and no. Financially, we may be reasonably well positioned, but in terms of supply & demand, I don't see Lee or Millsap improving on our current PF supply ... unless we can trade our $11 mil Murphy, of course. Adding Childress (or even Grant Hill as a short-term fix) as another wing would be wonderful, talent-wise, but I don't see us spending $5+ mil for anyone who doesn't address our biggest long-term need: an upgrade at starter talent, meaning PG & PF/C.


      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

        seriously I do not think giving a player the MLE is in the best interests of the Pacers. Maybe next year. But not the full this year. Remeber if we are over the tax threshold, we pay double. So signing a player at 5m is like spending 10m on them.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          Bird is looking like a genius. Imagine if we wait this out until August and end up with the likes of David Lee or Paul Millsap for the MLE (if neither team wants to match, of course). The chances of these things occurring are remote at best, of course, but it gets even pessimistic me excited.
          We'll match Lee at the MLE - Walsh will dance to the bank on that one. I'm sure he's settled on a number for Lee and I'm sure it's over the MLE. If we can get him back for that, it'll be time to party.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

            I could go for Lee. He can play center verses most rosters.

            Lee/Hibbert/Foster
            Murphy/Hansbrough/McRoberts

            Looks like we would need to trade Murphy or Foster to make sense of it.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

              Originally posted by DrFife View Post
              Well, yes and no. Financially, we may be reasonably well positioned, but in terms of supply & demand, I don't see Lee or Millsap improving on our current PF supply ... unless we can trade our $11 mil Murphy, of course. Adding Childress (or even Grant Hill as a short-term fix) as another wing would be wonderful, talent-wise, but I don't see us spending $5+ mil for anyone who doesn't address our biggest long-term need: an upgrade at starter talent, meaning PG & PF/C.
              You really don't think Milsap or Lee are an improvement over Murphy?
              2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                With respect to this article, obviously the teams that feel that they are in position to contend and are already near or over the cap are going to spend more to improve themselves, and have gone after the best free agents available for each team's purposes. Most are in markets that have not imploded due to these teams being highly competitive already, and they don't want to lose that for fear they end up facing the horrendous position of not even being able to give tickets away due to fans not wanting to spend what money they have on what they perceive being a lesser quality team.

                Others, notably Detroit, have filled a good portion of their needs by allowing their expirings to just leave and quickly moving to fill their needs with the free agents that they feel will best fit their needs going forward with money they had under the cap. These teams also don't want to fall into the abyss of having very few ticket sales without massive discounting due to their fans having the perception that they can't provide a competitive team starting this year.

                In fact, I believe that this is an easily defensible position in the upcoming negotiations between the owners and players association. A few teams that are rich are getting richer. A few more that are on the bubble are spending what they have in an effort to hold their positions.

                This will settle out pretty soon, and the remaining players and franchises that are not able to hook up with anybody early will simply wait, with the deepest remaining pockets picking up previously highly overvalued players for closer to their actual market value, and giving an opportunity to certain guys to corner their respective markets due to a perceived need for franchises to at least do SOMETHING to placate their fans and not allow themselves to fall towards poor attendance.

                Our question is, will Jack be a player who ends up cornering his market, or will he end up marginalized due to other teams recognizing that our offensive system leads to skewed statistics due to an exceptionally fast pace?

                I hope we luck out on Jack and are able to keep him for a cheap price, but I doubt that occurs. I also think we will be stuck with TJ due to his not having much trade value under this scenario.

                Murphy would be more tradeable, and will not have a higher value than he does now, unless his value is also diminished due to other teams recognizing that our offensive system provides him with far more boards than he would get elsewhere due to our pace of play and the difficulties faced by our opponents in getting to rebounding positions that they normally would due to the fast pace leading to more mental mistakes and fatigue.

                As far as next summer goes, there will only be so many free agents who are truly coveted. Franchises will recognize this and spend some of next year's money this year if the opportunities present themselves. Players may also want to potentially lock in early with contracts where they are just in case the cap reduces significantly next year, making it even more difficult for them to "test the market" next summer.

                I am not certain that this bodes well for the Pacers, especially if the Simon's either aren't able to spend due to financial issues that they face in the real world, or simply don't want to spend due to the fans not even truly coming back in huge numbers with exceptionally discounted tickets this past season unless it was to see the elite teams with elite players come to Conseco.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                  This could be an classic example of professional over-reacting. It's still early in the FA period. One would think Milsap and Lee are a priority. I would like to think we have shot at Lee. I dunno, maybe NY really loves Jordan HIll that much, I doubt it but maybe.

                  Yes, Lee is definitely and upgrade from Murphy. I still love Murphy's game. Like many, I just wish he didn't come so over priced.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                    I dont know about Lee. I used to be really high on him, but he cannot play defense, which we are in the need for
                    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                      Are the cap and tax figures announced today?
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                        I dont know about Lee. I used to be really high on him, but he cannot play defense, which we are in the need for
                        Oh how you were high on him.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                          Bird is looking like a genius. Imagine if we wait this out until August and end up with the likes of David Lee or Paul Millsap for the MLE (if neither team wants to match, of course). The chances of these things occurring are remote at best, of course, but it gets even pessimistic me excited.
                          Don't count on it. I don't think the Pacers are playing games, we're broke and we're spending like it.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                            Originally posted by ryheathco View Post
                            Don't count on it. I don't think the Pacers are playing games, we're broke and we're spending like it.
                            Hey, in the past we would have offered Jack a five year deal at the MLE. It's good enough for me!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Hollinger's read on free agency to date... good prognosis for a team like the Pacers?

                              I keep saying that one of the most underrated players in free agency is Marvin Williams, I even think that this guy is better than Ariza and nobody is paying attention to him, I wonder if he could be taken from Atlanta.
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X