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

Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

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

  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

    Originally posted by BoomBaby33 View Post
    First of all, did I say anything about your proposed trade? I didnt suggest anthing stupid like that. Why would you put words in my mouth?
    I didn't put any words in your mouth, and I don't propose trades. I have no idea what you're worked up about.

    I simply responded to your suggestion that JO has little trade value because of all his mileage by suggesting proposterous trades for guys with substantially more mileage. If JO is worth as little as you and others are saying because of "mileage", then KG and Kobe are worth far less than JO.

    Second of all, with your 20,000 minute theory, explain why JO is always hurt in the last 2 years versus KB and KG injury history. For you to say that you can compare minute for minute playing numbers comparing players is absurd in itself. As Since86 says, theres no comparison.
    Yes there is. Please put your thinking cap on. Was JO hurt when he played alongside Brad Miller? No. JO's injury problems began (a) at the conclusion of several years playing year-round on the national team and (b) after Brad Miller was traded away and JO became the Pacers only legit paint player. KG, on the other hand, has never spent much time in the paint. And while he hasn't gotten hurt and he's put up eye-popping stats, his softness has always been the #1 reason why the Timberwolves don't advance in the playoffs (when they make the playoffs). JO has sacrificed his body for his team. Hasn't worked out the way we wanted, but he's definitely been willing to do what was needed. KG's deceptively soft. That's why he doesn't break down.

    THIRD - JO is on the downside of his career with all the low post banging and bumping he has had to endure in 10 years (versus finesse type wing players like kg and kobe). kg doesnt play the low post like JO. 2-3 years max and JO will be a shell of his former self - mark my words. We need to get what we can NOW (but as much as we can at the same time)!
    Except that interior players have much longer careers than perimeter/ wing players. The exception to this rule are perimter players like Mark Jackson or Dan Marjele (or to a lesser extent, Reggie Miller), that don't rely on altheticism/ quickness.

    In retrospect, was it a huge mistake to leave JO in the paint by himself, without Brad Miller or someone else to take the physical pressure off him? Absolutely. But JO is pretty young, and without much mileage. He's far more likely to have a number of 75+ games-played seasons in the future than either KG or Bryant.

    JO bulked up in response to Brad Miller being traded and playing alongside Jeff Foster - because his team needed him too. KG's team needed him to bulk up too, but he didn't.

    If JO's time with the Pacers is over, I can live with that. I fully expect his career to last six-eight more years, and for him to play at a very, very high level for four to six of them.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

    Comment


    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Then why did you do it?
      I'm sorry, I should have said something more like "drawing the conclusion that JO is washed up in comparison to KG is an absolute joke."

      They may both be washed up. But I doubt that JO "only has two good years left" unless we're going to agree to a premise that KG has no good years left.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

        KG has no good years left, yet he just managed to lead the league in rebounding and in the NBA's effeciency rankings?

        KG leads JO in every category, but blocks, while playing in a vastly stronger conference. There has only been one year where KG has played lower than 76 games, compared to JO who has only played 76 or more 3 times. KG has played in over 240 more games than JO has, while only being in the league one year longer.

        KG is more valuable, more consistant, and healthier. KG is most definately not washed up.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

          I don't believe this stuff has been posted yet.

          http://www.boston.com/sports/basketb...cs_a_mismatch/

          There are ongoing discussions concerning a four-team trade that could send Pacers forward/center Jermaine O'Neal to the Celtics, according to league sources. But those same sources said that it is extremely unlikely that O'Neal will ever play in a Boston uniform. Celtics executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge has never been a big fan of O'Neal's, and there remains the not-so-small matter of O'Neal being able to opt out of his contract after next season.
          http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns...lakers-ON.html

          The talks turned into discussions about a four-way deal among the Lakers, Timberwolves, Indiana Pacers and Boston Celtics, in which the Lakers would have gotten Garnett. However, the deal broke down, reportedly because the Celtics did not like what they would have gotten, ending the four-way negotiations.
          No need to think this 4 team trade is going to happen. I believe DeSMASH, atleast to a point. Not sure about a trade going down with the Lakers getting Jermaine but I defiantly believe that these reports are coming out of LA and are nothing but BS.

          Comment


          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            Except that interior players have much longer careers than perimeter/ wing players. The exception to this rule are perimter players like Mark Jackson or Dan Marjele (or to a lesser extent, Reggie Miller), that don't rely on altheticism/ quickness.
            What about an interior player that relies on athleticism/quickness?
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

              Originally posted by MagicRat View Post
              What about an interior player that relies on athleticism/quickness?
              Now you've really done it.

              Jay I didn't realize you think so little of KG

              Comment


              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                Originally posted by kidthecat View Post

                JO's problem is that he has too much weight for his slim frame. He should be playing at 230-240 lbs instead of the 260 lbs he's been at these past few years. JO is right: he's not a five on defense. No way.

                I think JO would have a career year under O'Brien, maybe more akin to the IT days.
                Graph 1: Amen!

                Graph 2: Possibly if he lost 15 pounds and they ACTUALLY GO to an offensive system that could utilize a sleeker JO. At this point, would he lose the weight for the team? At this point, will the team truly change offensive philosphy or just do it lip service again?

                Speaking of which, I seem to recall hearing that the bulking up decision was a personal decision by JO. Not necessarily that the coaching/training staff approached him. I understand why given the role he was playing, but was it clearly that he was encouraged/forced to do it?
                Last edited by D-BONE; 06-26-2007, 05:10 PM.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  KG has no good years left, yet he just managed to lead the league in rebounding and in the NBA's effeciency rankings?

                  KG leads JO in every category, but blocks, while playing in a vastly stronger conference. There has only been one year where KG has played lower than 76 games, compared to JO who has only played 76 or more 3 times. KG has played in over 240 more games than JO has, while only being in the league one year longer.

                  KG is more valuable, more consistant, and healthier. KG is most definately not washed up.
                  Right, KG is alot more durable and a much better player, to think otherwise is deluding yourself as pacer fans.
                  The quote from Boombaby was really funny... Saying how JO has had to bang down low for 10 years... LOL more like 5 years where he actually logged big minutes, unless you are counting practice sessions vs Sheed in Portland, which I'm not... And he never did much banging. More like weak side free lance shotblocking. But this drives his point home even more.

                  Don't get me wrong I like JO. But he has some issues with being injury prone, and making the players around him better.
                  Last edited by PaceBalls; 06-26-2007, 05:12 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                    I just know when Lakers pitched offer Bynum, Odom, Brown and 19 for Garnett and taking back a bad contract prob Jaric , that the T'wolves said not near enough.

                    Whether the Pacers can get the Lakers to eat Murphy's contract of not I'm not sure. But I know the Lakers package to McHale did not excite him.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Now you've really done it.

                      Jay I didn't realize you think so little of KG
                      I just think he's soft. I call him Charmin.

                      He's incredibly talented, and there are many things about him to like. His softness does not get the scrutiny or criticism it deserves. But I don't care about the Timberwolves in any way, shape or form so I don't usually think its interesting to talk about KG's weaknesses. I'm just tired of the KG-lovefest.

                      If I were a Timberwolves fan, KG would infuriate me - all that talent but he wastes it by playing on the perimeter. Sure he puts up big stats, but he doesn't do whatever is needed to help his team win. I think he'd rather put up huge stats on the perimeter than be a winner. Even in the WC, playoff games are more of a grind and the Wolves lack of an interior game (which KG has the ability to do, just not the willingness) is the reason they never advanced in the playoffs.

                      Kobe + JO > Kobe + KG.

                      Mark my words.
                      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                      And life itself, rushing over me
                      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                        Originally posted by Jay View Post
                        I just think he's soft. I call him Charmin.

                        He's incredibly talented, and there are many things about him to like. His softness does not get the scrutiny or criticism it deserves. But I don't care about the Timberwolves in any way, shape or form so I don't usually think its interesting to talk about KG's weaknesses. I'm just tired of the KG-lovefest.

                        If I were a Timberwolves fan, KG would infuriate me - all that talent but he wastes it by playing on the perimeter. Sure he puts up big stats, but he doesn't do whatever is needed to help his team win. I think he'd rather put up huge stats on the perimeter than be a winner. Even in the WC, playoff games are more of a grind and the Wolves lack of an interior game (which KG has the ability to do, just not the willingness) is the reason they never advanced in the playoffs.

                        Kobe + JO > Kobe + KG.

                        Mark my words.
                        This is a fair point. I wonder if two people as intense as Kobe and KG could play together. It would either be the best idea ever or the worst idea ever.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                          from a veteran poster on LakersGround forum:

                          http://forums.lakersground.net/viewt...=asc&start=950

                          Bucher reported on ESPN:

                          Kobe spoke with KG and said he would reconsider if he was traded here, but until he is officially here, Kobe still wants to be traded

                          Also, Kupchak is reportedly very pessimistic a deal for Garnett will get done
                          and this:

                          Bucher just said on Outside the Lines that Mitch is very pessimistic a deal will get done and he (Bucher) thinks it is very unlikely "at this point." Of course, he changes his story almost by the hour now. He also said, and it's more positive, that Kobe's camp is now indicating Kobe is in a wait and see mode and won't comment on "what ifs," but, if the Lakers get Garnett, it would certainly give him pause to consider (or words to that effect) staying with the Lakers. So, I don't know: it seems odd to me that Kobe's camp would leak that apparent change in position which sounds like a deal might happen, if the deal really is very unlikely at this point (unless, of course, Kobe knows it won't happen so is willing to sound now like he may have stayed had it happened).
                          and finally:

                          ESPN

                          Also Bucher said that the Twolves are under pressure to trade KG before the draft

                          JO not worth it to Boston

                          NOT ON ESPN

                          Im hearing Rumors that Atlanta might come in as the 4th team (heard from LD2k and forums)
                          Bucher believes Minny has burned the bridge with Garnett and is under duress to trade before the draft. Thinks Lakers deal is a LONG SHOT.
                          Lakers dont have enough to entice Minny.
                          Last edited by blanket; 06-26-2007, 05:37 PM.
                          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                            Originally posted by Jay View Post
                            Kobe + JO > Kobe + KG.

                            Mark my words.
                            the question is how could we ever actually compare those two pairings?
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              KG has no good years left, yet he just managed to lead the league in rebounding and in the NBA's effeciency rankings?

                              KG leads JO in every category, but blocks, while playing in a vastly stronger conference. There has only been one year where KG has played lower than 76 games, compared to JO who has only played 76 or more 3 times. KG has played in over 240 more games than JO has, while only being in the league one year longer.

                              KG is more valuable, more consistant, and healthier. KG is most definately not washed up.
                              And JO is younger, with less mileage. JO is most definitely not washed up.

                              Read what I said again.

                              I said that unless we all agree that KG is washed up, the "JO only has two good years left" nonsense is nonsense.

                              You guys are making the foolish mistake to assume that a player, just entering their prime but on the end of three seasons in which semi-serious contact-related (not conditioning related) injuries have limited them - will always be injury prone. That's a bad assumption to make, and if the Pacers get hoodwinked into reducing his trade value because of that (and then he rips off several straight injury-free seasons) they're going to look like huge fools.

                              I didn't say KG was washed up. I said the only way we can seriously have a "JO only has two years left" discussion is to assume a player of JO's caliber, and two years older (and with 1.5x as many minutes - if JO plays every minute of every game for the next four seasons he still won't have as many minutes as KG as KG has now) is washed up.

                              Yes, that's a preposterous premise. That's exactly my point. Turn the conversation around.

                              I can't believe the follow-the-herd mentality around here lately. C'mon people, think about what you're posting.
                              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                              And life itself, rushing over me
                              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                                Sources: Garnett-to-L.A. talks end

                                http://www.probasketballnews.com/pbnbrkng_062607.html

                                By SAM AMICO

                                ProBasketballNews.com





                                Trade talks that involved sending Minnesota star Kevin Garnett to the Los Angles Lakers have ended, sources within the organizations have told ProBasketballNews.com.



                                “It’s officially dead. (Timberwolves owner Glen) Taylor won’t allow it to happen,” one source said.



                                The deal was first reported by the Los Angeles Times as a possible four-team trade that also involved Indiana and Boston, in which the Lakers would have received Garnett. According to the Times, Lakers big men Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum would have been sent to Indiana, and Indiana forward Jermaine O’Neal would have gone to Boston. Minnesota would have received young players and draft picks.



                                The Times later reported that Boston backed out of the deal -- leaving the Lakers and Timberwolves to negotiate on their own. One scenario reported by the newspaper had the Lakers shipping Odom, Bynum and the No. 19 pick to Minnesota for Garnett.



                                The Boston Globe and other news sources have reported similar deals within the past 24 hours.



                                “All discussions have ended (between the Lakers and Timberwolves),” a second source told PBN.com. “There’s no deal.”



                                A third source would only say “it‘s very slim” when asked if there remained a possibility that Garnett could end up with the Lakers this off-season.



                                Taylor and Timberwolves vice-president of basketball operations Kevin McHale ended the talks with L.A. after determining the Lakers couldn’t offer enough in return, according to the sources. The Timberwolves are expected to continue seeking a deal for Garnett, and will likely focus their attention again on Boston and possibly Phoenix.



                                “It seems like they don’t want (Garnett) playing in the Western Conference, and that only makes sense,” the first source said.



                                Garnett is 31 years old and a 10-time All-Star. He has spent all 12 seasons in Minnesota, and averaged 22.4 points, 12.8 rebounds and 4.1 assists last year.



                                Garnett is owed $22 million next season and $23 million in 2008-09. His contract expires following the ‘08-09 season and he reportedly has requested an extension.



                                Sam Amico is the editor of ProBasketballNews.com. He can be reached at amico@probasketballnews.com.
                                "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                                -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X