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

Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

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

  • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    I believe in making moves to prevent your competition from getting a new threat. You get Markieff so Toronto doesn't get him.
    I'm not trading for a Player just so that another competitor doesn't get him. That seemed to work out well the last time we did that ( see Bynum ).

    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
    You also should realize Paul is 2 years away from a player option. If LA looks good by then (Clippers or Lakers) he could easily opt out and leave. At age 27. That's a key age. You really want to try and compete for a ring at 27 because your skills slightly start to decline at 30 or 31.
    I fully realize that PG13 could bolt in 2 years ( as you have repeated about a million times since he signed his extension ). If PG13 wants to leave, than he leaves.

    Unless a trade opportunity presents itself that nets fair value for the Player that we are sending out is available in the next 2 weeks that will help the Pacers win now and in the near future, than it is short sighted to make a trade just to make a trade in the hopes that it will convince PG13 that we are serious about competing for a championship.

    If Bird thinks that pairing Teague ( a high usage Player ) with 2 other high-usage Players ( PG13 and Monta ) and it costs us GH for the next 2 years is what he wants to do...fine...than I will live with it but won't agree with that method of building a Team. Having a Starting lineup with MULTIPLE high-Usage Players makes very little sense. There's a reason why the Spurs and the Warriors are playing so well. It's because they not only bought into the system, they build a roster that complements each other.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
      Somehow, with the existence of this thread, my "Fire Vogel" thread is now the second silliest thread on PD.
      I agree. Clearly we have a bizarre "concentration meltdown" issue going on in the final stretch of every game, but it's not one player and it isn't even the plays. To make it worse its often guys who are red hot that completely implode out of nowhere at the end. Monta was having an outstanding game when he put the ball off his foot for an unchallenged backcourt violation. His pass through Hill's 5 hole was a good play that ended in terrible execution. And the end of regulation was a go-to PnR with he and Myles that Turner failed to read correctly.

      I watch Ellis off-ball a lot and he's probably the smartest player on the court. He reads the floor well on both ends. The TO pass from the sideline that went to George Hill was due to Ellis sneaking off Ish and then closing out hard on him when the ball went his way. He does this stuff all the time. He's not a 3pt guy but when forced he'll put it up because its the right play at that point, even though he knows he's not a great 3pt shooter.

      If anything the issue is that plays develop upside down so that you end up with Hill driving and kicking to Ellis on the arc late in the clock, rather than the reverse.


      And regardless of any of this, the team looks outright golden for long stretches. Most of these blown losses involved them first GETTING A LATE LEAD. How the F do you do that if you suck? You think Sixers and Suns games are all about them getting up by 4-6 with 90 seconds left only to blow it? Of course not. They are good enough to beat any team except maybe the Spurs and Warriors. This is despite PG's fatigue, Stuckey and Ian injuries and a horrible CJ slump.


      They don't need a closer because they have people that can make late plays. If anything I think the biggest issue is being an offense based around PG and PG is struggling, which cascades to everything. I do put some of that on Vogel, though I certainly wouldn't get rid of him.

      Having said that I was going through some clips from recent years and saw Denari/Fox doing a segment on all their close games. They were winning more of them but they were getting themselves into tough late games with collapses in other seasons too. That identity has been lurking and we've seen other guys make terrible concentration plays. Hell, David West spent most of last season making some plays so bad I started wondering if he was tanking. Maybe Vogel is too supportive and they lose their edge, I don't know exactly.


      But the key is that there is something lurking that isn't solvable with a roster adjustment. This team has plenty of talent at all positions. Myles is great and Ian is having a career year. J Hill has been very reliable (he was terrific vs Cleveland). So this isn't a team lacking bigs and they damn sure aren't short on wings/guards. They can put up 100 points with Paul and CJ not even having good games, and that sounds like crazy talk.

      Comment


      • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
        But again - our team isn't winning now and its not going to win now. This roster does not have the talent to win now. Its just not realistic. Even if PG gets out of this slump, we still don't have a shot at beating the Cavs in a 7 game playoff series - and thats if we even get that far. Teams that live or die by the 3 only die by the 3 historically do not have much success in the playoffs. The Golden State Warriors are the only exception I can think of.

        By win now, do you just mean make the playoffs?

        I'm not going to be happy if our best case scenario is the playoffs. Thats where we are now.

        Lets focus on the future
        . You say Payne may be better than Hill in a season or two. What exactly do you expect to accomplish in that time? We aren't going to win the Championship and I'll bet everything I own on that.
        Based off of your reasoning, we might as well sell the farm...tank and go the Sixers route.

        The closest that we got to getting to the NBA Finals was built off of a core roster that played together for several seasons. It didn't happen overnight, it happened with the arrival of Vogel and a roster built around GH/PG13/Lance/West/Hibbert where Bird pushed for the Playoffs, year after year after year. That experience and chemistry paid off and we got as far as we could with that core of Players. No, it didn't get us a Championship....but we can't really do much when we have Lebron in the same Conference.

        I don't expect to win a Championship until Lebron starts to break down.....but I do expect over the course of this season and the upcoming Offseason to establish a core set of Players that we can build around and than build chemistry over time. I think that GH should be part of that core ( more as a 6th Man than a Starter ). It doesn't mean that I don't want to add to that core....it just means that I'm not looking to move a Player like GH unless we get back a quality Starting Level Player.

        But I get what you are saying....plan for the future. How we do that is up in the air and when we make such moves.

        I want to make a move as well in the next 2 weeks because I do see flaws in the roster and I think that there will be opportunities to do so ( cuz of Teams wanting to shed salary ). But, I only want to make such moves if it makes sense. Moving GH doesn't make sense to me given how our current roster is built ( most notably with having Monta/Stuckey on the roster ). I think that we will have some opportunities to make some moves in the next 2 weeks....but short of some total no-brainer trade... I'm not going willing to "go all in" ( as in, trade GH ) now knowing that there will be as many opportunities to improve the Team in the Offseason.
        Last edited by CableKC; 02-03-2016, 07:41 PM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
          Grimp, I am an opinionated poster myself. I will sit here and explain why I believe something over and over.

          That said, you have posted these same 2 trades for weeks or maybe even months now. We've all seen it many times, and no one is on board with it.

          Regardless of whether or not I would even do Hill for Teague, the Hawks certainly would not. They want to trade Teague to start developing the German PG, Hill just puts them in the same situation. Also, Markieff Morris is awful - giving up our first for him would be a colossal mistake. He isn't going to solve any of the issues we have now and we can find better options in FA without sacrificing our future to do so.
          To be fair.......getting a Guard like GH ( specifically a lower Usage Guard that can play "off the ball" ) to play next to Schroder makes a lot more sense than player like Teague ( a high Usage Guard ).

          But the same reason why it would make sense for the Hawks to swap GH for Teague is the same reason why I'd want to keep GH....we have Monta, PG13 and Stuckey in the Guard/Forward rotation. We have to have a Guard that can play "off the ball" since more high-usage / ball dominant Players like Monta/PG13/Stuckey will likely be on the floor at the same time.
          Last edited by CableKC; 02-03-2016, 07:44 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            I should also say, I am a George Hill fan. He is probably my second favorite player on the Pacers to be honest. But we can't just keep being okay with where we are. George Hill is the only non George or Turner player on this entire roster with any kind of trade value, if we can get a guy with Payne's potential for him, I don't see why we wouldn't do it.
            The irony in your trade suggestion ( where we trade for Cameron by sending out GH ) is that we'd be doing what the Spurs did when they traded a more established Player for a prospect ( by trading GH for Kawhi ).
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
              George Hill for Jeff Teague makes a lot of sense. After that I'd probably offer Christmas and a 2016 1st for Markieff. Giving us...

              Markieff
              Paul
              Myles
              Monta
              Teague
              Hill for Ellis is probably the worst trade we could do. Teague and Ellis backcourt is a terrible fit. Teague and Stuckey backcourt is almost just as bad.

              I won't even comment on Morris

              Comment


              • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Based off of your reasoning, we might as well sell the farm...tank and go the Sixers route.
                No, I don't ever want to tank. It instills awful habits in young players.

                The closest that we got to getting to the NBA Finals was built off of a core roster that played together for several seasons. It didn't happen overnight, it happened with the arrival of Vogel and a roster built around GH/PG13/Lance/West/Hibbert where Bird pushed for the Playoffs, year after year after year.
                I agree. The thing is, back then, George Hill was much younger, PG13, Lance, and Hibbert were all young as well. Right now, Hill, Mahinmi, and Ellis are 29,29,30. We know what kind of players they are, and if we plan to build up slowly, taking it year by year, we are going to find ourselves stuck as they start to decline in talent.

                Taking your same principle. Why could we not use Payne, George, and Turner and build on that year after year? 19,21, and 25.

                Comment


                • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  The irony in your trade suggestion ( where we trade for Cameron by sending out GH ) is that we'd be doing what the Spurs did when they traded a more established Player for a prospect ( by trading GH for Kawhi ).
                  Worked out pretty well for them. ;-)

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                    Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                    No, I don't ever want to tank. It instills awful habits in young players.

                    I agree. The thing is, back then, George Hill was much younger, PG13, Lance, and Hibbert were all young as well. Right now, Hill, Mahinmi, and Ellis are 29,29,30. We know what kind of players they are, and if we plan to build up slowly, taking it year by year, we are going to find ourselves stuck as they start to decline in talent.

                    Taking your same principle. Why could we not use Payne, George, and Turner and build on that year after year? 19,21, and 25.
                    Okay, I don't think that it's the right way to go.....but I will concede that if Bird thinks that it's a good idea to trade a highly efficient and effective Combo-Guard ( who I think should be shifted to the 6th Man role once we get another Starting Quality Guard in the offseason ) for a younger Player with potential ( while shifting Stuckey to the 6th Man role ), it can help for the long term.

                    But that doesn't mean I think it's the right move to make. What you are suggesting is more of a long-term move to "win later" as opposed to more of a "win now" move.

                    Trading GH doesn't change my long-term plans to build around a core of PG13/Monta/Turner and whoever we sign/trade for in the upcoming offseason. I just think that GH should be part of the long-term core because of what he does on the court on both ends. I still think that trading one of the better Players on this Team that could still provide a lot of production coming off the bench while providing "on and off the ball" while playing Starter minutes ( think having GH play more of a Manu-like role ) is a mistake. This is true especially when this Team NEEDS to have Players that can be effective while playing "off the ball" with more ball dominant Players like Monta and PG13.

                    Trading GH now is more of a move to improve the Team IF we didn't have any other options in the near future. But given that we have Cap Space to either sign or trade for Players to fit that long-term core of Players to build around, it's not like we have to trade him now to improve the Team. Now, I can see how you say that no one is going to come to Indy via free agency....then why bother? The problem is that we don't know what will happen nor what opportunities will present itself. I am just certain that we will have more options to improve the Team compared to now ( even if he is the most valuable Player that you think we can part with ).

                    If trading GH doesn't net us a high quality Player ( and IMHO, Payne maybe a tantalizing option....but I'm not so sure that he's the "magic bullet" that will get us over the hump ), I'm not looking to include GH in any trade...whether it be now or in the summer of 2016.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 02-04-2016, 11:49 AM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                      Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                      But again - our team isn't winning now and its not going to win now. This roster does not have the talent to win now. Its just not realistic. Even if PG gets out of this slump, we still don't have a shot at beating the Cavs in a 7 game playoff series - and thats if we even get that far. Teams that live or die by the 3 only die by the 3 historically do not have much success in the playoffs. The Golden State Warriors are the only exception I can think of.

                      By win now, do you just mean make the playoffs?

                      I'm not going to be happy if our best case scenario is the playoffs. Thats where we are now.

                      Lets focus on the future. You say Payne may be better than Hill in a season or two. What exactly do you expect to accomplish in that time? We aren't going to win the Championship and I'll bet everything I own on that.
                      I just wanted to point out one thing. The Pacers are not a huge 3 point attempt team relative to the league. They are 18th in the NBA currently in percentage of FG attempts from 3 point range. In fact, they are one of the least heavy 3 point teams in the East playoffs. Cleveland, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Toronto are all higher than them.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Okay, I don't think that it's the right way to go.....but I will concede that if Bird thinks that it's a good idea to trade a highly efficient and effective Combo-Guard ( who I think should be shifted to the 6th Man role once we get another Starting Quality Guard in the offseason ) for a younger Player with potential ( while shifting Stuckey to the 6th Man role ), it can help for the long term.

                        But that doesn't mean I think it's the right move to make. What you are suggesting is more of a long-term move to "win later" as opposed to more of a "win now" move.

                        Trading GH doesn't change my long-term plans to build around a core of PG13/Monta/Turner and whoever we sign/trade for in the upcoming offseason. I just think that GH should be part of the long-term core because of what he does on the court on both ends. I still think that trading one of the better Players on this Team that could still provide a lot of production coming off the bench while providing "on and off the ball" while playing Starter minutes ( think having GH play more of a Manu-like role ) is a mistake. This is true especially when this Team NEEDS to have Players that can be effective while playing "off the ball" with more ball dominant Players like Monta and PG13.

                        Trading GH now is more of a move to improve the Team IF we didn't have any other options in the near future. But given that we have Cap Space to either sign or trade for Players to fit that long-term core of Players to build around, it's not like we have to trade him now to improve the Team. Now, I can see how you say that no one is going to come to Indy via free agency....then why bother? The problem is that we don't know what will happen nor what opportunities will present itself. I am just certain that we will have more options to improve the Team compared to now ( even if he is the most valuable Player that you think we can part with ).

                        If trading GH doesn't net us a high quality Player ( and IMHO, Payne maybe a tantalizing option....but I'm not so sure that he's the "magic bullet" that will get us over the hump ), I'm not looking to include GH in any trade...whether it be now or in the summer of 2016.
                        You keep saying "win now", what do you mean by this? This team is clearly not winning now. What do you see that I don't?

                        FWIW, you are one of my favorite posters here, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

                        I just think its a mistake trying to build a team whose best case scenario is a second round exit. Thats what this team is right now. There is not a realistic FA option out there that will take us past the ECF next year either. I love George Hill, like I said, he is probably my second favorite Pacer, but this team isn't winning now and isn't going to win now. I want to try to make this team a contender. We have zero shot of doing that within the next two years.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                          Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                          I just wanted to point out one thing. The Pacers are not a huge 3 point attempt team relative to the league. They are 18th in the NBA currently in percentage of FG attempts from 3 point range. In fact, they are one of the least heavy 3 point teams in the East playoffs. Cleveland, Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Toronto are all higher than them.
                          Fair enough. Regardless of how many we make, it certainly feels like our team lives or dies by the 3. That could be because we don't have a single consistent shooter outside of George Hill though.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                            Fair enough. Regardless of how many we make, it certainly feels like our team lives or dies by the 3. That could be because we don't have a single consistent shooter outside of George Hill though.
                            It probably "feels" that way because, in crunch time, opposing defenses are actively shutting down all other options and are more than happy having Monta Ellis shooting 3s to beat them.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              You keep saying "win now", what do you mean by this? This team is clearly not winning now. What do you see that I don't?

                              FWIW, you are one of my favorite posters here, I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from.

                              I just think its a mistake trying to build a team whose best case scenario is a second round exit. Thats what this team is right now. There is not a realistic FA option out there that will take us past the ECF next year either. I love George Hill, like I said, he is probably my second favorite Pacer, but this team isn't winning now and isn't going to win now. I want to try to make this team a contender. We have zero shot of doing that within the next two years.
                              Win Now....as in "Win in the Short Term". I'd look to trade GH for a Player that will get us deeper into the Playoffs this season. But I also want a Player that will help us "Win in the Long Term". I'd look for that Player to be part of the long-term Core that can immediately contribute to win games in the 2016-2017 season and beyond.

                              Trading GH for a Player with Potential ( like Payne ) won't help us get deeper into the Playoffs this season.... unless he's able to produce on the same level as GH immediately.....then we will only see the trade of GH as a benefit for the long term.

                              I am willing to hedge that Payne won't be able to contribute on the same level as GH ( when it comes to GH's offensive/defensive efficiency ) for the rest of this season...or even next season. But I will concede that I have no clue whether Payne can become an impact Player like GH immediately ( like how Myles was able to hit the ground running )....or that things will click for him if he is given consistent minutes next season...or that it will happen in 2 seasons from now.

                              To be clear, I am not suggesting that GH is untouchable. The reality is that there is no move that we can make that will "Win Now". I just think that he should be considered part of the long-term Core. If we are to trade a long-term core Player....unless a trade of GH yields a Player that can contribute both this season and for the next season....I'm not looking to trade him.

                              For you, I understand that you'd trade GH for a "Win Later" Player ( as in, trade him for Payne ). But I think that because he should be part of the long-term core and I'd rather go with a PG13/Monta/Myles/GH core along with whoever we add in the Offseason via FA or Trade...as opposed to the same with Payne in the equation....I'd rather not trade GH unless the above conditions are met.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 02-04-2016, 04:00 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bench, trade, or reign in Monta Ellis

                                Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                                Grimp, I am an opinionated poster myself. I will sit here and explain why I believe something over and over.

                                That said, you have posted these same 2 trades for weeks or maybe even months now. We've all seen it many times, and no one is on board with it.

                                Regardless of whether or not I would even do Hill for Teague, the Hawks certainly would not. They want to trade Teague to start developing the German PG, Hill just puts them in the same situation. Also, Markieff Morris is awful - giving up our first for him would be a colossal mistake. He isn't going to solve any of the issues we have now and we can find better options in FA without sacrificing our future to do so.


                                I think Hill would not get in the way of Dennis's development. G. Hill is a vet and could easily come off the bench for Atlanta.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X