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

The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

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

  • Re: Steven A. Smith - three teams have made their final offers - Pacers offer

    Looking at the IndyStar forum....its funny how only a few people from that 4 page IndyStar thread has questioned the legitimacy of that rumor.

    You would figure that someone there would turn on ESPNEWS to verify the story. If it were true...you would see YET another interview with SAS huge head yappin on about this.

    Instead....they have 4 pages of what we give up in that trade instead of actually verifying the rumor. :shakehead:
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

      True Hoop has this tiny bit on the end of a post about Ron Harper:

      "(Also, AI's going to Denver. See? There's your one Iverson post)"

      Got me if it's a joke or not. Speaking as a fan of both teams (living in Colorado now but really a Pacers fan) if I was Billy King I'd probably take the Denver deal. I wish the Pacers would get him but it doesn't look like it from what I've read.

      And Andre Miller is the real deal. I've watched about 3/4 of the Nuggets games this year and he's a pinpoint passer and really controls the tempo well. Of course this means that if he goes, Earl Boykins will probably be the Nuggets PG and he surely is one of the worst players in the league.

      Comment


      • Re: Steven A. Smith - three teams have made their final offers - Pacers offer

        Cable, that's because IS features a lot more trolling anymore and less appearances by the reliable regulars. That's one reason I spend more time here. I like the IS regulars and would enjoy talking to them, but half the time it's just junk anymore.

        The few regulars I know from there did join in questioning the validity in that thread.

        Comment


        • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
          True Hoop has this tiny bit on the end of a post about Ron Harper:

          "(Also, AI's going to Denver. See? There's your one Iverson post)"

          Got me if it's a joke or not. Speaking as a fan of both teams (living in Colorado now but really a Pacers fan) if I was Billy King I'd probably take the Denver deal. I wish the Pacers would get him but it doesn't look like it from what I've read.

          And Andre Miller is the real deal. I've watched about 3/4 of the Nuggets games this year and he's a pinpoint passer and really controls the tempo well. Of course this means that if he goes, Earl Boykins will probably be the Nuggets PG and he surely is one of the worst players in the league.
          Nah, Boykins will get Iverson's scraps. I think they'll run AI at PG and have 'Melo bring up the ball if Ivy is being pressured. It's basically the same theory about having LeBron on your team: you don't have to have a "traditional" PG at PG, because you have someone in the lineup that can bring the ball up at another position.

          Comment


          • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

            Oh, BTW, Andre Miller is undervalued, especially on a team with no real post-up game. What Miller does for the Nuggets is makes laser precise passes in transition and also in the half-court set so that their athletic big men can get easy scores. Losing him and bringing in Iverson changes the dynamic because AI won't be threading the needle on a fast break, and their bigs will have to score on putbacks or dishes in the paint. Seems like a pretty big risk to alter the way your team plays, as well as giving up 1 or 2 1sts in the process. Either way, 2 1sts or a 1st and Miller is overpaying. 2 1sts AND Miller would be insane.

            Comment


            • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

              Here is Vescey's latest.


              http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ter_vecsey.htm


              BROWNOUT ON A.I. TO N.Y.
              By PETER VECSEY

              December 15, 2006 -- NOW we know why Isiah Thomas was so quick and so blunt to extinguish speculation regarding a possible Knicks-76ers deal involving Allen Iverson, which, of course, hasn't stopped the oblivious from resuming that particular guessing game, to single out one of many.

              As much as the False Prophet may crave The Answer's services/magnetism to impact the Knicks' stands and standings, he knows for sure the feeling isn't mutual about the player Philadelphia would have to take back.

              Yet there's actually something more uncompromising than accepting either Stephon Marbury or Steven Francis in exchange. Thomas can't help but know there's no way in Wayne's World the 76ers are going to do anything to help the Knicks if their unofficial consultant has any swap with Billy King.

              Sources reveal Larry Brown regularly has been in the team president's ear since the season began. We're talking coaching and personnel decisions, you know, stuff like whom to support, send home and secure. Yesterday I received confirmation on that information.

              In the NBA piling on not only is allowed, it's encouraged. Hardly an anonymous gambler, Iverson should be used to having odds and decks stacked against him.

              "There is nothing formal at this time," said the person who was kind enough to substantiate the story, adding Brown also has attended Sixers practices and several games. I get the distinct feeling an inscribed Next Town arrival announcement may be in the works . . . unless his dream high school coaching job suddenly becomes available.

              It's unclear whether Brown is being compensated for being King's consigliere. Nobody was willing to give up the goods on that score. With any luck, he's getting his. Don't know how he could work for nothing after losing $22 million in his last negotiation.

              Meanwhile, the 76ers were no nearer a deal last night than they were a week ago when they began soliciting bids on Iverson. They're discovering what the Pacers learned the excruciating way last season when management threw Ron Artest off the set: Despite Iverson's scoring magnitude, it's almost impossible for King to extract what's fair when it's obvious he owns precious little bargaining leverage.

              It took the Pacers months to find a suitor willing to surrender someone of consequence for Artest, and they only had Peja Stojakovic for the remainder of last season before the free agent forced a sign-and-trade with the Hornets. Artest had his baggage and Iverson has his, but Ron's salary was a mere $7M, whereas Allen's is $17.1 followed by $19M and $20.8M.

              Think about how difficult that contract is to sell when so many of the league's 30 owners seem to care more about staying under the luxury tax than competing for a championship.

              Ideally, the 76ers are intent on trading Iverson for at least one young promising stud, a first-round draft pick or two and contracts that expire no later than the end of next season. Not coincidentally, that time frame coincides with the termination of Chris Webber's $22.3M monstrosity. If accomplished it would signal the dawn of a new era.

              Naturally, no one is cooperating; they're well aware there's plenty of wiggle room/conciliation ahead. Despite one erroneous report after another by ESPN, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Daily and a swelling swarm of other fiction writers, here's today's update:

              The Clippers won't give up Shaun Livingston. The Warriors won't give up Andris Biedrins or Monta Ellis. The Timberwolves don't appear willing to give up Randy Foye, but even if they are, they have next to nobody the 76ers want.

              The under-capped (14M) Bobcats never wanted Iverson in the first place thus they somehow resisted giving up Sean May, Raymond Felton and Gerald Wallace.

              The Pacers talks never went anywhere worthwhile.

              The Nuggets are desperately trying to pawn off Nene's base-compensation, $60M ($8M this season) six-year albatross, by far, last summer's league-worst free agent signing. Using Charlotte's cap space is their only avenue to concoct a trade . . . if someone were remotely interested in an obscenely overpaid, broken down, second-string, unskilled laborer.

              The Kings won't give up Kevin Martin. The Bulls won't give up Ben Gordon and, in reality, never had any conversation with the 76ers. Yeah, that'd work, Iverson, his headband and Scott Skiles.

              The Mavericks would only be enticed should the 76ers buy out Iverson and he became a free agent. That'll never happen. I guarantee that with the same certainty I assure you Allen will never play another game for the 76ers. The Blazers aren't the least bit tempted by Iverson. Nene appeals to them even less. The Lakers are intrigued in Iverson but don't have the resources to get something done, especially now with Lamar Odom (torn knee ligament) sidelined for six weeks or more.

              As far as I can determine, that leaves Boston, maybe Minnesota (should the 76ers cave and consent to long-term obligations of, say, Troy Hudson or Marko) and Miami.

              The Celtics won't give up Al Jefferson, maybe, Gerald Green, too.

              The Heat make the most sense. They've got three expiring contracts within the next two seasons. James Posey is up at the end of this one, while Jason Williams and Michael Doleac are up the year after. In addition, they flaunt Dorell Wright, a young, promising stud. I'm not saying Miami is prepared to part with Wright. With or without him, the salaries meet league specifications.

              More importantly, the Heat have Pat Riley, who unquestionably has earned Iverson's attention and respect. At the same time, the team is presided over by Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade, two celestial presences who should be able to keep him moderately focused, at least as long as he believes there's a title to be had.

              peter.vecsey@nypost.com

              Comment


              • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                Funny that you chose the Pacers most tumoltuous season to use to make your point.
                Not at all because the point was about being able to win 44 games and the first round IN SPITE OF "roster problems" which is how everyone always bails out Iverson's lack of success. For example:
                Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                While we're on results, think about this...

                00/01 76ers.

                Iverson
                Eric Snow-starting guard, under 10 pts/7 ast
                Aaron McKie-defensive minded player, just over 10 pts/4 ast
                Tyrone Hill-completely past his prime, under 10 pts/8 rb
                Dikembe Mutombo-past his prime, but still semi-effective 10 pts/11 rb (only played 26 games)
                George Lynch-...
                Matt Geiger-...
                Theo Ratliff-...
                Toni Kukoc-past prime
                etc.


                Want to know something else? Only 4 players on that team played more than 65 games. That's actually less than the '04/'05 Pacers.

                This injury depleted group of role players made it to the NBA Finals without having a chance to establish much of a team identity. That tells me everything I need to know about Iverson's worth.

                And the scary thing is that this is the most talent he's ever been around. Not as sad as KG's situation, but close.
                Here's the secret info left out.

                The 4 Sixers that played 65+ games? ALL STARTERS, and check the minutes played
                AI - 2979
                McKie - 2394
                Lynch - 2649
                Hill - 2363

                And Mutumbo only being able to play 26...yeah, because the Sixers traded for him after ALL STAR Ratliff went down with injury (remember when Simmons said it was a fact that AI only played with one AS...it wasn't). That injury kept Ratliff out of the AS game. It was in that game that Philly saw AI and Dikembe bring the East back all by themselves and the trade happened shortly after.

                What that means is that the starting center for the team was:
                Ratliff (AS) and then Dikembe (AS) - 1800 + 875 = 2675 minutes of AS caliber rebounding and shot blocking (Ratliff was at 3.5 blocks per game!)

                So that was the "injury depleted group of role players". 5 starters all effectively getting 2000 minutes (if you combine Rat and Mut).


                Now who were the 5 Pacers that got 65+ games...
                Gill
                James Jones
                Fred Jones
                Croshere (shot 26% from 3 that year while playing with the chest injury)

                and Reggie's 66 games. Nevermind the center thing with Philly, nevermind that Jumaine Jones had 65 games for Philly which means that if we change the cutoff to 64 games then both teams had the same number of players reach that point (plus Rat-Mut to effectively give Philly the edge).

                The minutes for the starting Pacers that year:
                Tins - 1301
                Reggie - 2106
                Artest - 291
                JO / Dale - 1530 + 730 = 2260
                (since we combined Rat-Mut this seemed only fair to concede)
                Foster - 1594

                Fred was the only other Pacer to go over 2000 minutes. His 2268 was less than 4 of the starting Sixers. The 1800 Ratliff got with Philly before his injury was still good enough for a virtual tie for 4th on the Pacers (Jackson, 1806).


                Go ahead, make the case that Gill = McKie or James Jones = Lynch (other than from 3pt) or Croshere = Hill (and his 9 rpg that season) or that Foster = Ratliff or Mutumbo (esp that season).

                Hill was past his prime? Dude put up 9 rpg and was 32. How old is AI again? (hint, 31)
                AI is just as much past his prime if we use age and numbers similar to what he always put up. Hill would drop off quickly AFTER this season, but hadn't yet.

                And Mutumbo was not just an all-star, he was a STARTER on the AS team the next year when they only won 43 games. 2 all-star starters winning 43 games, and with a roster that featured 3 other guys getting 2000 minutes - Coleman (8.8 rpg, 15 ppg, 45% shooting), Snow (6.6 apg, 12.1 on 44%) and Harpring (7.1 rpg, 11.8 on 46%).



                The Lakers had 2 AS starters too. Okay, so Shaq was better than Dikembe, DM still was a strong defensive ace who pulled down 10.8 rebounds that year and shot 50% from the floor (as expected from any decent big). AI is Kobe (allegedly in the ballpark, right). So why the 43 wins. Surely the Lakers didn't really have much more talent that year. Fisher, Fox, George, Horry, they were good for 15 more wins and a title?

                And the Sixers had the guy that won COY the season before still running the team so it couldn't have just been Phil Jax.

                Comment


                • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                  Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                  Oh, BTW, Andre Miller is undervalued, especially on a team with no real post-up game. What Miller does for the Nuggets is makes laser precise passes in transition and also in the half-court set so that their athletic big men can get easy scores. Losing him and bringing in Iverson changes the dynamic because AI won't be threading the needle on a fast break, and their bigs will have to score on putbacks or dishes in the paint. Seems like a pretty big risk to alter the way your team plays, as well as giving up 1 or 2 1sts in the process. Either way, 2 1sts or a 1st and Miller is overpaying. 2 1sts AND Miller would be insane.
                  The Nuggets have a history of messing up trades and draft picks (if I remember correctly, K-Mart cost them 3 picks and they also had Jameer Nelson drafted but gave him away to Orlando). Don't put it past the Nuggets to overreach on this one.

                  As for this:

                  "The Nuggets are desperately trying to pawn off Nene's base-compensation, $60M ($8M this season) six-year albatross, by far, last summer's league-worst free agent signing. Using Charlotte's cap space is their only avenue to concoct a trade"


                  Although that contract is excessive I can't see it as being worse than Chris Kaman's contract. I understand that he can score around the basket and is an okay rebounder but I just don't get paying a slow white guy that much money when the league is going more up-tempo.

                  Nene can run the floor, finish on the break, not a bad passer and he's only 21. Plus, he's got a nice mean streak. Remember when he got into it with KG in the playoffs a few years ago?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                    Just to add on to this:

                    "Fisher, Fox, George, Horry, they were good for 15 more wins and a title?"

                    Yeah. The number of clutch plays, game winners and hustle plays from these guys is staggering. Just about all of them have a signature game or moment (Horry for three top of the key against the Kings, Fisher with .04 against the Spurs, etc).

                    Perfect compliment to the two superstars.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                      The only problem with Vescey's column is that Philly isn't going to give Iverson up for some expirings and a 3rd year HS player who didn't make The Leap, can't shoot the 3, and plays Igoudala's position. Even if they threw in a 1st, several teams could beat that offer. If they threw in two 1sts, I would laugh my *** off, because they would be great this year, but would be garbage within 3 years and D. Wade would be demanding a trade of his own.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Ric Bucher on NBA Coast to Coast

                        Imagine Miami having THREE All Star starters on their team.

                        No one's going to take K-Mart at this point.

                        Seth's posts are so long.
                        You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

                          See that's what I've been saying, I think AI is going to end up in Miami unfortunately. The planets just seem to be aligned for something like that to happen. Shaq and Riley keep AI in line, and he comes out smelling like a rose come playoff time.
                          (I hope I'm wrong)

                          Why Not Us ?

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

                            Posted on Fri, Dec. 15, 2006

                            Larry Brown is helping the Sixers again

                            By David Aldridge
                            Inquirer Staff Writer


                            More offers

                            Brown's reemergence with the Sixers came as King continued sifting through offers for Iverson. The Denver Nuggets are continuing to try to broker a three-team deal that would send Iverson to Denver, forward Nene to Portland, and center Jamaal Magloire (from the Blazers), forward Joe Smith (from the Nuggets), and another player to Philadelphia.

                            The Blazers, according to a source, are doing their due diligence on Nene, and now believe his surgically repaired knee is sound after he missed almost all of last season after suffering a ligament injury. Nene is a base-year compensation player, meaning the Nuggets can only take back 75 percent of his $8 million salary this season in a trade. But by adding Smith and another player to the deal, Denver would free up enough money to bring in Iverson's $17.1 million salary.

                            Sources indicated yesterday that the Chicago Bulls are also trying to get into the discussions, along the same lines as Portland. Under this scenario, the Bulls would try to get center/forward Marcus Camby from Denver, while sending veteran P.J. Brown to the 76ers. Smith and the other player would still come from Denver to Philadelphia, and Iverson would wind up a Nugget.

                            But the sources said that King was not very interested in 37-year-old P.J. Brown, despite his expiring contract ($8 million this season). Brown is not playing much at all in Chicago and would welcome a trade.

                            The Pacers, Celtics and Warriors all remain potential suitors for Iverson. Miami coach Pat Riley indicated that the Heat also are interested.

                            King has told friends that he is in no hurry to complete a deal, despite breathless speculation all week from both broadcast and print media that an Iverson trade was imminent. Iverson has been separated from the team since Snider disclosed Friday that the club would honor his request to be traded; his locker at Wachovia Center has been cleaned out, with his nameplate removed.
                            Philadelphia Enquirer

                            Why Not Us ?

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

                              If King is truely most interested in expiring contracts, too bad we still don't have Austin. It wouldn't have taken much more than Austin, another guy and a draft pick for the Sixers to get what they wanted from us.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Iverson Trade Speculation/Rumor Thread (Updates Here)

                                I found this article interesting

                                http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...printstory.jsp

                                O'Brien on Iverson




                                EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE giving his opinion on Allen Iverson lately. Well, on ESPN.com, someone in the know, former Sixer coach Jim O'Brien, gave his account of the soon-to-be ex-Sixer.

                                Here's a sampling:

                                On Iverson's reaction when, in a team huddle, O'Brien called him the worst defensive point guard in the history of the game?

                                O'Brien: "After that, he told me it was the first time he'd ever been called the worst in anything."

                                On Iverson's sensitivity:

                                O'Brien: "The best part about Allen is that he had no problem being criticized in front of his teammates. You don't find that to be the case with superstars. Another example was at halftime I got on him pretty hard about defense. Before we got back on court he said, 'Listen, tell me to [play defense] right then, don't wait till halftime.' "

                                On leading and practicing:

                                O'Brien: "I told him that I wanted him to be a leader, that he would have to be a person who was going to be on time and be ready to lace 'em up. And I told him I would never have him leave his legs on the practice floor. He had to stretch with the team and start practice with us, but leave it to me to take him out... It's true he doesn't need practice to be a great player. But back then [Iverson's infamous "practice" press conference in 2002] what he sometimes did not recognize is that for the team to play its best, he needs to practice."

                                On Iverson the person:

                                O'Brien: "He's very, very likable to be around. His teammates really like him, although they're not always comfortable playing with him."

                                On what's next:

                                O'Brien: "I think he's going to bring a tremendous amount to a team that is positioned to go deep in the playoffs. If he's on a team no better than the Sixers, then he's going to have to be the guy who dominates the ball and it will be a difficult situation."


                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X