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

Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

    This afternoon I continue the series I started last week about some of the looming key decisions our Pacers must make during the spring and summer of 2009. Part 1 considered the the debate between TJ Ford and Jarrett Jack, and the factors that will be considered when the Pacers front office makes its plans for the point guard position in 2009.

    Today I want to look at our inside players, and discuss the process of adding the type of big players we think we need.

    It is an almost universal belief, and one that I share personally, that to truly make a significant jump in results that we will need to add some athleticism, toughness, defense, and back to the basket scoring to our inside rotation of players. With our team defense being particularly porous this season, having someone inside who can play all around solid defense in the paint next season is imperative if we want to see our record improve.

    I don't think anyone would, in general dispute, that last paragraph.

    Many years ago, when faced with a similar problem in how our roster was built, Pacers GM at the time Donnie Walsh selected a big bruising kid out of Clemson, 6'11'' Dale Davis. Davis turned out to be the perfect fit for the roster that existed alongside him. His defense and rebounding complemented Rik Smits, his outstanding screen-setting helped free Reggie Miller, and his intimidation and toughness set the tone for our entire roster for years into the future. His ability to be able to step out hard on the screen/roll helped Mark Jackson and Travis Best recover to their men, and his size and strength enabled him to be able to play along side a smaller Antonio Davis without us giving up much at all when we substituted.

    While not the same exact type of player, many of the Pacers problems could be solved if they could get lottery lucky and be able to draft Blake Griffen, who is probably a better athlete and player than Davis was, especially offensively.

    But it is unlikely we get that fortunate as to get the first overall pick. ANd with my draft research being partially done, I already can see a major problem developing.....to paraphrase Rick Pitino, "Dale Davis isn't walking through that door."

    So the second big question I see for the Pacers to try and solve is this:

    IF THE BIGGER, ATHLETIC INSIDE PLAYER THE PACERS TRULY NEED ISN'T AVAILABLE IN THIS DRAFT, WHAT DO WE DO?

    As I see it, here are our choices:

    A. We could draft a lesser prospect as an inside player, perhaps someone who is slightly undersized, and try and get by. We could do this even though there isn't truly a big player we actually are all that excited about, just because our need is so acute. In this scenario I am assuming that the Pacers indeed do not find a player they love as an inside presence in this draft, but take one anyway due to need.

    B. We could take the money we have available to try and sign a free agent, probably instead of spending it on re-signing Jarrett Jack. We know from the first thread in this series that almost everyone is adamant about bringing Jarrett Jack back, even though I personally don't think it is realistically the smartest long term move.

    C. We could try and trade a remaining asset to another team and try to acquire our power player. As I see it, our current available assets could include Jeff Foster (a fan favorite who does make our team better when he is on the floor, but who also is declining, aging, and becoming injury prone and rather expensive in this current NBA economy), TJ Ford (who is tradeable but expensive, and in fact due to his contract you'll likely need to bring back both a young power forward you want plus at least one contract you'd rather not have), a signed and trade deal involving Jarrett Jack ( a scenario I favor and think is likely, but I am the only one who thinks so in the world apparently). In some sort of unlikely blockbuster money type deal, I suppose we could trade Troy Murphy, who will never be more tradeable than he is right now perhaps, coming off a career year. Any of these moves is likely to be close to money-nuetral, theoretically either letting us sign another cheaper free agent or drop our overall payroll expense for 2009-2010.

    D. We could just draft the best player on the board regardless of position, sign only cheap bigger free agents, and basically stay just as weak inside next year as we were this year, while we bide our time, save our money, and see who comes available later on. This almost assures us of not making the playoffs in 2009-2010, but it also keeps us from committing out of desperation to a move we may regret later.


    The first choice, option "A", is the simplest and cleanest. Draft somebody you are lukewarm on and try and sell the choice to your fan base, who already knows you need a power player anyway. Maybe this player ends up being a solid bench player long term, or maybe you get really lucky and he ends up being better than any of us (or even yourself perhaps) thinks they will be. Even if this player ends up being just a mediocre player, he at least probably is an upgrade over what we have now, even if he isn't the long term type player we need.

    Of course this is the problem: Outside of Blake Griffen, there isn't a single "power player" in this draft that I think projects even as an NBA starter, with the possible exception of one prospect I am reviewing that I won't name quite yet, as I am still studying him. More than likely, whichever big player you select won't help you hardly at all next year, because there is just a lack of talent and size that we need among all these power prospects.

    The last choice, option "D", means you probably end up with a better player from this years draft, as you took the best player available to you when you picked this year, and you'll likely be in the lottery again next year too. It also means you are basically conceding the next season before it starts, or hoping just to try and patch work your way again in the paint this year. This would be an example of playing McRoberts significantly more minutes, and perhaps signing a veteran free agent for the vet minimum to round out the roster. Next year after the season you can try again to solve your power player shortage with another year of perspective under your belt.

    This will probably be hard to sell to your fan base however, and it will be hard to sell to the guys you are hoping buy season ticket packages, luxury suites, and sponsorships at Conseco. It would be a clear sign you are hoarding money and likely are ok with missing the playoffs for the 4th straight year.


    Ok, so let's assume that both scenario "A" and "D" aren't the smartest way to go, just for arguments sake. That would mean that the following statement is true I believe: "THE POWER PLAYER/INSIDE ATHLETIC PLAYER WE NEED IS ALREADY CURRENTLY PLAYING IN THE LEAGUE"!

    Assuming that (and I DO believe that is a true statement), let me name some criteria I think we need to establish for any big player we bring in.

    1. Younger, athletic, with ideal size and body type. Potential to improve.
    2. No baggage, good guy off the floor and in the community.
    3. Needs to be able to play both alongside Hibbert AND Murphy (unless in the unlikely event you trade Murphy to get this player in the first place)
    4. Can't be so costly moneywise that it makes no sense or requires us to trade the farm to get him.
    5. If it is a free agent, all we can realistically offer is the MLE at the very very most, and perhaps not even that, unless we do it in a sign and trade type of deal.

    Just for fun, I compiled a list of names of various "bigs" in the league who we might consider. I am not going to rank them in anyway, and I am going to include some that I personally don't even like for us, just because I think they fit the profile somewhat. Feel free to comment or add to the list. Before you reply, yes I know that many of these players may not even be available at all, it is just a starting list of names!

    -Paul Millsap
    -Tyson Chandler (would need to include Murphy due to salary cap rules because Chandler is so expensive)
    -Brandon Wright
    -Brandon Bass
    -JJ Hickson
    -Tyrus Thomas
    -Joakim Noah
    -Anthony Randolph
    -Marreese Speights (you all knew I would include him)
    -Charlie Villanueva

    I am sure there are others I have forgotten to list. I tried to list guys with significant size in either height or strength that would enable them to play with both Hibbert and Murphy, which means they would need to be able to guard the opponents biggest player at times (since Murphy cannot).


    With such a glaring need for at least one and perhaps more athletic inside players for next year's roster, how the Pacers choose to go about trying to fill that specific need will be very very interesting. It will be even more fascinating if they decide like I basically have that the player we need is undraftable, because other than Blake Griffen he probably doesn't exist in this years draft class.

    I'd look for the Pacers to make at least one pretty aggressive, perhaps controversial trade for a bigger player this offseason, probably near the draft.



    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

    I wouldn't mind either of the young bigs from Golden State. Mareese Speights isn't going anywhere. Tyrus Thomas bothers me for some reason, but it's nothing I can substantiate. I like his athleticism, but he just seems to me to have the potential to be a bit high maintenance.
    Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 04-19-2009, 06:13 PM.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

      Brandon Bass is the most realistic good-case scenario.

      I would not want Thomas and Noah and I doubt the Pacers would acquire them.

      JJ Hickson and Milsap are not going to happen.

      Randolph is too skinny to protect his own mother, let alone the paint in an NBA game.

      Marreese Speight is a dream that will not happen.

      Charlie V is a nightmare I hope does not happen.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

        -I see Boozer leaving (likely DET) so I see Milsap staying. Only if UTA goes max to keep Boozer di I see him available, & then i'm not sure we could out bid his other suitors.
        -I will agrue for T.Thomas, & I think he would be awsome here. I think his issues are related to the organizational issues in CHI more then anything. Before MJ & P.Jackson, CHI was a crap organization & team & w/ both gone they have reverted back. Only a gift from God via D.Rose has this team out of the lottery. T.Thomas was young, & surrounded by too much youth & iffy characters IMO, I a lot of his attitude issues are likely the result of spoiled youth syndrome. Take him away from CHI, place him on a team w/ good guys & a strond leader in the organization (L.Bird) & a strong team leaders (D.Granger/M.Dunleavy), & I think he is the type of talent we need. He still has mad up-side, & if asked to focus on defense, he could be awsome paired w/ either Murph or Hibbert.
        -I am a big fan of pursuing the NOH's in a deal for TC. I'm not sure what the talks centered around t/y, or if we have anything of interest to them, but I think TC's "D" & flexibility would be huge to our "D" & instantly make Murph & Hibbert better. If we can do this w/o killing all cap, I do it.
        -Speigths is not likely, though if I'm LB I inquire & see what it would take. If we could get him in a combo for TJ then that would work for me.
        -I like B.Bass from the little I've seen & heard, but would not get caught betting thefarm on him. 6'8" is still not the ideal size I want in a PF, but as others have proved (Rodman, Barkley), that should not be the determining factor to go by. If had for a reasonable price, or in a trade (something centered around Barea/Bass for Ford?) then OK.
        -I am not a huge Charlie V guy, but see him as a hit w/ some Murph-like shills & size to him. The questions about his drive & commitment scare me, though when he brings it, he's solid.

        Not much interest me, though H.Warrick for the right price would not be bad either.
        Last edited by PacerGuy; 04-19-2009, 07:13 PM.
        "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
        (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

          I think Josh McRoberts can possibly become the player you describe.
          “It is what we learn after we know it all that really counts” - John Wooden

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

            Originally posted by dlewyus View Post
            I think Josh McRoberts can possibly become the player you describe.
            So does McBob's agent.

            Seriously though,
            Maybe someday, but not likely n/y. He still has a long way to go.
            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

              Tyrus Thomas has never been a player that interested me, BUT he seems to have improved the last 20-25 games of the season for the Bulls. He would seem to fit in the athletic "D" mode. He maybe something for TPTB to truly consider.

              Other PF's T-Bird didn't mention are

              Leon Powe
              Glen Davis
              Chris Wilcox
              Jason Maxiwell
              Antonio McDyess
              Luc Mhah a Moute
              Chris Anderson


              Chris Anderson would be my pick b/c of his toughness and "D". He averaged 6/6 this year. YES, I know of his past drug problems, BUT he's kept clean since being re-instated. B/c of the squeaky clean type players the Pacers need, he's not an option even though I like him.

              My next choice is Luc Mhah a Moute. He played mostly PF for the Bucks this season, but can play the SF as well. He should come cheap and has plenty of upside to grow. He's not a traditional PF, but I like him. He can play "D".

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                Leon Powe is another player with some upside. Like Brandon Bass, he is a bit undersized but plays fairly big...is pretty efficient offensively...and can help defend the paint...not great but not bad. A starting role for either of them on the Pacers would be a step up for their careers...because they are behind all-star players at the PF position. I'm just not convinced we have the assets to lure them to Indy. In the meantime, Josh McRoberts is our best prospect at that position.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  Brandon Bass is the most realistic good-case scenario.

                  I would not want Thomas and Noah and I doubt the Pacers would acquire them.

                  JJ Hickson and Milsap are not going to happen.

                  Randolph is too skinny to protect his own mother, let alone the paint in an NBA game.

                  Marreese Speight is a dream that will not happen.

                  Charlie V is a nightmare I hope does not happen.
                  Charlie Villanueva is pretty much the opposite of the player that you guys want. Avoid this guy.

                  Brandan Wright maybe available, but he's not the big bruising/physical presence forward that everyone wants and I don't think the Pacers-Warriors match up trade wise in any kind of deal. Randolph is not available. He is skinny, but taking that into account, he's also one of the best pound for pound rebounders/shotblockers in the league at 19 years of age.

                  Philly and Cleveland probably envision Speights and Hickson, respecitively, as future starters. They like those guys just like you like Brandon Rush.

                  Milsap is highly unrealistic. He's a restricted FA and would require a sign and trade, which would require the Jazz to take back big salary and I'm not sure they'd want any of the Pacers big contracts. Same things applies to Carlos Boozer.

                  Brandon Bass could be a partial answer. For one thing, he's a lot closer to 6'5" than he is 68". He'll hit the boards hard, throw his body around and score some garbage points inside, but he won't add much to you defensively. He would be PART of the answer, just not a complete one.

                  But even then, don't the Mavs need Bass' services every bit as much the Pacers? I'm not sure what a realistic deal is.

                  Best thing to do right now is just re-sign Josh McBobbies (should be able to keep him for cheap) and maybe another cheap guy off the scrapheap like Mikki Moore or a hustle guy you find in summer league.

                  You can draft a guy, but at #13 in a bigman depelted draft, I'm not sure what you'll get and we all know any bigman taken at that spot isn't going to play much next year.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    Charlie Villanueva is pretty much the opposite of the player that you guys want. Avoid this guy.

                    Brandan Wright maybe available, but he's not the big bruising/physical presence forward that everyone wants and I don't think the Pacers-Warriors match up trade wise in any kind of deal. Randolph is not available. He is skinny, but taking that into account, he's also one of the best pound for pound rebounders/shotblockers in the league at 19 years of age.

                    Philly and Cleveland probably envision Speights and Hickson, respecitively, as future starters. They like those guys just like you like Brandon Rush.

                    Milsap is highly unrealistic. He's a restricted FA and would require a sign and trade, which would require the Jazz to take back big salary and I'm not sure they'd want any of the Pacers big contracts. Same things applies to Carlos Boozer.

                    Brandon Bass could be a partial answer. For one thing, he's a lot closer to 6'5" than he is 68". He'll hit the boards hard, throw his body around and score some garbage points inside, but he won't add much to you defensively. He would be PART of the answer, just not a complete one.

                    But even then, don't the Mavs need Bass' services every bit as much the Pacers? I'm not sure what a realistic deal is.

                    Best thing to do right now is just re-sign Josh McBobbies (should be able to keep him for cheap) and maybe another cheap guy off the scrapheap like Mikki Moore or a hustle guy you find in summer league.

                    You can draft a guy, but at #13 in a bigman depelted draft, I'm not sure what you'll get and we all know any bigman taken at that spot isn't going to play much next year.
                    This was pretty much my take.

                    Just as in the PG thread, there are a lot of things we're going to want to do, but very few that we'll actually be able to do.

                    My guess is that we're going to do "D", along with the McBob action mentioned by d_c, here, (and the "A" from the other thread).

                    I have no way to calculate the probabilities, but if forced to give it a number, I'd say over 80% chance in both cases.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                      Originally posted by count55 View Post
                      This was pretty much my take.

                      Just as in the PG thread, there are a lot of things we're going to want to do, but very few that we'll actually be able to do.
                      It's not easy to find. A lot of people are saying "All we need to do is add that playmaking PG" or "All we need to do is add that big, athletic PF who can defend."

                      Well, what do you think fans of about 25 teams in the league are thinking? They're all looking for the same things. Heck, even the good teams that already have that defensive minded PF probably wouldn't mind having another one. They're coveted items.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                        Originally posted by dlewyus View Post
                        I think Josh McRoberts can possibly become the player you describe.
                        Be careful now, "conventional wisdom" is that Josh is and will always be a scrub, despite the fact that he was once a projected lottery pick (top ten) based on physical abilities and upside. Not to mention the youngest player on the team.

                        He has a lot to prove at this point, but I would like to see what hes got next year with more consistent playing time... Roll with Murph and see what Josh gives you off the bench...

                        As far as the draft goes, Im not impressed with the PF prospects where we are picking... I say go best player available regardless of position. This is a weak draft anyway so take the guy who looks to become the most tradeable asset later.
                        Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 04-19-2009, 08:51 PM.
                        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                        - ilive4sports

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Tyrus Thomas has never been a player that interested me, BUT he seems to have improved the last 20-25 games of the season for the Bulls. He would seem to fit in the athletic "D" mode. He maybe something for TPTB to truly consider.

                          Other PF's T-Bird didn't mention are

                          Leon Powe
                          Glen Davis
                          Chris Wilcox
                          Jason Maxiwell
                          Antonio McDyess
                          Luc Mhah a Moute
                          Chris Anderson


                          Chris Anderson would be my pick b/c of his toughness and "D". He averaged 6/6 this year. YES, I know of his past drug problems, BUT he's kept clean since being re-instated. B/c of the squeaky clean type players the Pacers need, he's not an option even though I like him.

                          My next choice is Luc Mhah a Moute. He played mostly PF for the Bucks this season, but can play the SF as well. He should come cheap and has plenty of upside to grow. He's not a traditional PF, but I like him. He can play "D".
                          Didnt Maxiell sign an extension? I dont know why people are talking about him being a FA
                          "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                            Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                            The first choice, option "A", is the simplest and cleanest. Draft somebody you are lukewarm on and try and sell the choice to your fan base, who already knows you need a power player anyway. Maybe this player ends up being a solid bench player long term, or maybe you get really lucky and he ends up being better than any of us (or even yourself perhaps) thinks they will be. Even if this player ends up being just a mediocre player, he at least probably is an upgrade over what we have now, even if he isn't the long term type player we need.

                            Of course this is the problem: Outside of Blake Griffen, there isn't a single "power player" in this draft that I think projects even as an NBA starter, with the possible exception of one prospect I am reviewing that I won't name quite yet, as I am still studying him. More than likely, whichever big player you select won't help you hardly at all next year, because there is just a lack of talent and size that we need among all these power prospects.

                            Would this player you won't yet mention happen to be Patrick Patterson?

                            That sure is who I am starting to take a good look at. A couple inches
                            undersized, but with exceptionally long arms, great athleticism, and
                            reportedly tough as nails.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 2

                              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                              Be careful now, conventional wisdom is that Josh is and will always be a scrub, despite the fact that he was once a projected lottery pick (top ten)based on physical abilities and upside. Not to mention the youngest player on the team.

                              He has a lot to prove at this point, but I would like to see what hes got next year with more consistent playing time... Roll with Murph and see what Josh gives you off the bench...

                              As far as the draft goes, Im not impressed with the PF prospects where we are picking... I say go best player available regardless of position. This is a weak draft anyway so take the guy who looks to become the most tradeable asset later.
                              As much as people might have undersold McBob when the trade with Portland went down, people are just as much overselling him now. I know everyone loves the scrappy kid who hustles but let's stay real here. Which I know is asking a lot because Pacer fans are great at overvaluing our own talent.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X