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

Grade the Pacers offseason

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

  • #76
    Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
    Like I said to wintermute: If your best offer is a 2nd rounder and you have no deals in place for a quality replacement, then your best option is to keep the player (unless the player absolutely made it impossible for their return..and no, I don't think Hibbert was there) until a better offer comes along.
    Except it wasn't. It's a 2nd rounder + cap space. For all we know, there were offers of 1st + bad contracts out there that we liked less.

    And we did wait out the FA moves of teams like Dallas who wanted a center. It's not a coincidence that the Roy trade was announced immediately after DJ committed to Dallas. Now if you're arguing that the Pacers should have anticipated DJ reneging...

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
      No, not really. How do you spin FG% defense at the rim or points per 100 possessions?
      Exactly. So we should be a better team defensively without Roy because the Pacers allowed fewer points per 100 possessions when he was on the bench and gave up more points when he was playing. He was a defensive liability!
      Danger Zone

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

        Originally posted by imawhat View Post
        That's a tough question. I don't know what 'a lot' means. Here are some thoughts:

        1. A team that missed out on a big free agent but heavily invested into having a 4/5 join the team. There were several teams that moved players on bad trades just to make room for LMA, and then lost out. Then there are teams who lost out on DeAndre.

        2. A team early/mid season that sees an upgrade in rim defense as a significant improvement. There were a couple of teams that fit that category last season.

        3. A crazy GM. Even if you think Hibbert is a bum, you have to consider that there are bad deals made all the time. The Toronto/JO trade came out of nowhere. I'd argue Cleveland gave up too much to get Mozgov. Sacramento made some stupid moves recently.


        Like I said to wintermute: If your best offer is a 2nd rounder and you have no deals in place for a quality replacement, then your best option is to keep the player (unless the player absolutely made it impossible for their return..and no, I don't think Hibbert was there) until a better offer comes along.
        I do. I think the Hibbert situation was untenable and that's why they tried to trade him last year, but unfortunately after his end-of-season collapse he had absolutely zero value. This year his expiring contract makes him a bit more valuable. Hence, gone.
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Yes, that's correct.

          Look, I don't think it's a great trade either. I'm as horrified as anyone by the idea that Jordan Hill will be our starting center. But what are our alternatives?

          1. Trade Roy for a better package. Of course, I'd like this too, but do we seriously think the Pacers didn't go with the highest bidder?

          2. Keep Roy for now, trade him at the deadline. After signing Monta, we would only have the room exception left to fill out the roster. Lavoy would be here either way, but we're now looking for another big, another wing, and another guard with a grand total of $2.8m. To top it all, there's no guarantee that Roy's value would improve. And to have the Roy situation hanging over everyone, doesn't like a great move chemistry wise.

          3. Keep Roy for the year, then let him walk. Same roster issues as above. It's also essentially what we did with West, ending up with cap space but no future assets. Myself, I prefer to move on earlier. Get the growing pains of the new style out of the way 1 year early.

          There wasn't a slam dunk way out of this IMO. We were lucky with J.O., because some other team thought he could still "dominate" and was willing to give up TJ Ford and a mid first for him. Roy though just doesn't seem to have many believers around the league. Not his fault but not really the Pacers' either.
          I agree with this 100%. We made what we could out of a bad situation. We had no leverage in a Roy trade because everyone knew we were shopping him and that a divorce was imminent.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

            Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
            Nobody here seems to be saying Hill is going to be a future HOF or anything like that with the Pacers. So it seems extreme that so many here are already labeling Hill as a bust.

            All I am saying is lets keep in mind that Hill was playing for a team last year that was trying to tank. So in doing so they sat Hill at times during the season. Whether that is accurate or not or who knows but it's what was reported. If a player is instructed his team is tanking I am betting it has an impact on his psyche.

            Point is, not sure we can deduce what Hills production will be like here based on a team that last season preferred to keep his minutes low in order to acquire additional lottery ping pong balls.

            Specifically, to claim hill is a bad defender (or even rim protector) because he played for a team attempting to tank by playing bad defense is an unfair and misinformed assumption to take as your own.

            Maybe Hill's defense does suck, but lets see what he can do under Coach Vogel before slamming the hammer on Hill as a serviceable defender in the paint.
            Jordan Hill played the most minutes of his career last year on a per minute basis. Also you don't have to just look at last season to say he's a poor defender, you can look at his entire 6 year career. It's not like he's a young guy, he's an established veteran. There's a reason he went from being paid $9 mil last season (still can't believe LA gave him that) to $5 mil this season (much more accurate in terms of what he brings to the table)

            Idk anyone is labeling him a bust. He is what he is at this point. He should be able to give some offensive contributions and rebound the ball fairly well. But to say anyone is basing the fact that he's a terrible defender on last year alone would be false. He's been a bad defender his entire career

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
              I just don't believe this. There's no way to really know, but we traded Roy before free agency had shaken out, and there was a lot of PF/C talent available this offseason.

              Either way, if you're serious about being a better team, you go with option 3. Keeping him is far better than the offer we had on the table, and we only lose a 2nd rounder (and Hill/Budinger, if you want to count that).
              And Stuckey. Since the Pacers went under the cap because of Monta, they would have only had the room exception to offer him, which considering his contract doesn't seem like it would have been nearly enough.

              I disagree that FA hadn't shaken out by the time the Hibbert trade was done. Obviously the Jordan reversal might have changed things, but that was a very unusual situation. Other than that, all the big power forwards and centers had already found a home. Monroe, Jordan, R. Lopez, LMA, and Chandler had all found teams. Phoenix was the only team to miss out on LMA after clearing salary, and they had Chandler. The Clippers were interested in Hibbert, but they couldn't find any way to deal for him. The only thing that has changed in the last two weeks was Dallas suddenly needing a center before they got Zaza.

              Trading Hibbert during the season would have been almost impossible. Nobody has a trade exception big enough to fit Hibbert's salary. You would have to find a contender that needs a center with a scheme that fits Hibbert, that would have at least 11 million or so worth of players they like less than Hibbert, with a player that the Pacers liked well enough for the future to give up on the salary flexibility at the end of the year (or a pick on top of the 11 million worth of players). That's a really tall order to find a match.

              The choice really was to either trade Hibbert for cap space, or let him play out his last year of the deal. The odds of anything else happening were fairly remote.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                I'm giving the team an A- for this offseason so far. I think that they hit a couple of home runs in the draft who can be big time contributors down the road. David opting out was out of our hands but he was replaced with a dynamic scoring point guard that matches up perfectly with George Hill. Roy was either going to be gone this year or next, so getting his cap space back for a Jordan Hill signing and a Rakeem Christmas deal was a pretty decent trade off. Christmas has an NBA body and can contribute immediately.

                I'm stoked about the future of this team. Paul George is still very young and will be entering his prime yet. We will be back in the playoffs this year and we will give valuable experience to our young players, and then come back next year as stronger contenders.

                "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                  Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                  Jordan Hill played the most minutes of his career last year on a per minute basis. Also you don't have to just look at last season to say he's a poor defender, you can look at his entire 6 year career. It's not like he's a young guy, he's an established veteran. There's a reason he went from being paid $9 mil last season (still can't believe LA gave him that) to $5 mil this season (much more accurate in terms of what he brings to the table)

                  Idk anyone is labeling him a bust. He is what he is at this point. He should be able to give some offensive contributions and rebound the ball fairly well. But to say anyone is basing the fact that he's a terrible defender on last year alone would be false. He's been a bad defender his entire career
                  Fair enuff, but Hill has also played for some bad defensive teams. Houston, NYK, and LAL. All 3 of those teams are or were at one time woeful.

                  Its not always just the players, its also the defensive concept/philosophy. For example: According to the rim protection stat Josh Smith and Terrance Jones are great rim protectors. Now does that have more to do with D12 having their back or are they actually as good as the stats suggest.

                  Out of 24 players 10-12 were from the same team, represented by Jazz, Pacers, Rockets, and I forgot the other one. Favors was a top 5 rim protector, anyone truly believe he is that legit or was Rudy "BEAST" Gobert boosting his efficiency.

                  I dont know if that stat goes as far back but would be interesting to see Mahinmi's pre-Pacers days rim protection fg%. I know Iain is top 10 and dont get me wrong I am all about the homerism, but Ian doesnt truly strike me as an elite rim protector, despite the stats suggesting as much.

                  I simply have faith in Coach Vogel to coach em' up on that end of the court. Honestly, defense is skill related but it also involves alot of heart, determination, and toughness, of which none of the 3 were required as a Laker from Hill.

                  Here, it will be.

                  Not saying Jordan Hill will leap into the top 20 fg% wise for rim protectors but if it happens it will prove my point. Stats are great at general interpretation but very deceptive if all variables are not taken into consideration.

                  I am guessing if Jordan Hill played beside Rudy Gobert many would be preaching waht a great defender Hill can become.

                  All that aside, my point is Coach Vogel is one helluva a defensive coach so lets give Hill a chance before writing him off for good.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                    Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                    Exactly. So we should be a better team defensively without Roy because the Pacers allowed fewer points per 100 possessions when he was on the bench and gave up more points when he was playing. He was a defensive liability!
                    You're not actually serious about this right?
                    "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                    -Lance Stephenson

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                      That's a tough question. I don't know what 'a lot' means. Here are some thoughts:

                      1. A team that missed out on a big free agent but heavily invested into having a 4/5 join the team. There were several teams that moved players on bad trades just to make room for LMA, and then lost out. Then there are teams who lost out on DeAndre.

                      2. A team early/mid season that sees an upgrade in rim defense as a significant improvement. There were a couple of teams that fit that category last season.

                      3. A crazy GM. Even if you think Hibbert is a bum, you have to consider that there are bad deals made all the time. The Toronto/JO trade came out of nowhere. I'd argue Cleveland gave up too much to get Mozgov. Sacramento made some stupid moves recently.


                      Like I said to wintermute: If your best offer is a 2nd rounder and you have no deals in place for a quality replacement, then your best option is to keep the player (unless the player absolutely made it impossible for their return..and no, I don't think Hibbert was there) until a better offer comes along.
                      Not trying to brash here or nothing but if you truly review the landscape you will discover the reason Roy's trade value was so low. I've hit the same nail so many times the hammers about to break. But if you are sincere in looking for an answer review the following 30 teams depth charts.

                      http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nba.aspx


                      The answers right there. Not many teams need a center. The position is not as depleted as it once was back in the day. No longer are teams imo going to overpay for bigs like the ole cliche suggests - "bigs get paid." Why? Supply and Demand.

                      The supply has increased and demand responded accordingly. NBA has changed alot, even in the last 5 years. Most likely due to the CBA agreement. Players with bloated one year deals are not as desired as they once were.

                      You keep listing all these teams and all these scenarios but your going to continue in a cloud of confusion and despair unless you do the research on your own.

                      Again, here it is.

                      http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nba.aspx

                      Review all 30 teams and tell me 15 teams that would take Roy over what they currently have. That was my position early spring. With the most recent NBA draft it may be like 20 teams that would have absolutely no need for Roy's services.

                      Let me know your thoughts im interested in your feedback. I believe if a poll were conducted the general consensus is Roy is no longer a top 15 center, and by the end of the season maybe no longer top 20.

                      Strictly based on the following charts as support (and taking pay into consideration - ie value).

                      http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nba.aspx


                      Just my $0.02. If you are looking for a sincere response, I believe the answer if right in front of you.

                      Check the landscape and you will see why not many teams were willing to invest in Roy's services.

                      http://www.rotoworld.com/teams/depth-charts/nba.aspx

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                        Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                        We replaced Roy Hibbert with possibly an even better rim protector. Turner will get heavy minutes from day 1. I don't think Hill starts, because like you said, he isn't a rim protector.
                        That's part of the problem I have with this summer's efforts.

                        We acquired Turner through the draft. We replaced Hibbert with a second round draft pick. Now, I realize that this transaction cannot be viewed in a vacuum, because it freed up cap space to enable adding other players and the draft pick we received was converted into another player.

                        Although it may have been the best Bird could get for Hibbert, that doesn't reduce my want for more. I was hoping for a lower first rounder or perhaps two high second rounders. Or even a player that would be a rotational player with a short term contract along with a second rounder. It's not the end of the earth for me; I was just disappointed to see how low Hibbert's value decreased.

                        I was very pleased with the acquisition of each player selected in the draft, especially with our second rounder. I think he will prove to be a fantastic selection and a great bargain.

                        I was not happy with our last two players added. I was hoping that we could somehow land one more rotational player with the 2.5M slot we had left.

                        So, my grade would be a B- / C+.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                          A- because there was no option for B+. I didnt want to say "B" because that was to low. I really wish we had "+" options


                          "Pacers will win 50 games this season" 07-16-2015
                          "Ian will average 10-10 this season" 10-21-15

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                            I wanted to say B- or C+ but went with B. The best upgrade we got was PG getting back to normal-ish, which isn't an actual move. We lost a couple decent, proven bigs, and replaced them with a bunch of mediocre, unproven ones. I like that we have some fairly talented young players now, but I don't think we will be much better next year. Not remarkably anyway. I think these moves will make us slightly better, but again PG is the biggest part of that so I can't give a ton of credit.

                            What stopped me from giving a lower grade though was just the immense change they made. Slow, unathletic, and big team to quick, young, and athletic in a single offseason. I think it was a damn good job to keep the team at even a similar level. However all of Hill, Allen, Whittington, Robinson, Turner, Budinger, Young, and Christmas are pretty much projects. I don't expect more than 2 or 3 of them to develop into good players, especially next year.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                              Originally posted by ECKrueger View Post
                              We lost a couple decent, proven bigs, and replaced them with a bunch of mediocre, unproven ones.
                              If they are unproven, how do you know they are mediocre?

                              Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk
                              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


                              • #90
                                Re: Grade the Pacers offseason

                                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                                If they are unproven, how do you know they are mediocre?
                                They're currently mediocre, but they haven't yet proven if they will remain so.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X