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

    Jay,
    You need to call JO and either get a job as his PR man or as his agent.

    Personally, I think if 'softness' is an issue in your argument then JO isn't going to be scoring many debate points for you anyway.

    KG>JO IMO and I don't think I'm out on a limb with that statement.

    -Bball
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


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

      Looks like LA will be calling the Pacers again.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by blanket View Post
        Let's hope it's true that the KG talks have broken off. Then LA will have to come back and grovel to us per DaSmash.
        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 blanket View Post
          Sam Amico is another one of those guys that I wouldn't put a lot of stock in.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
            Let's hope it's true that the KG talks have broken off. Then LA will have to come back and grovel to us per DaSmash.


            at least get Bynum, Farmar, and #19 and whatever filler...

            if we get Odom, spin him off for a top ten pick (Bos, Char?)

            Then I'll be-
            "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

            Comment


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

              Bucher is reported on Sportscenter, that the Suns have re-entered the KG talks, and are trying to get to the Hawks to become a 3rd team.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                Bucher is reported on Sportscenter, that the Suns have re-entered the KG talks, and are trying to get to the Hawks to become a 3rd team.

                If there is one thing the Hawks DON'T need it is Shawn Marion.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                  If there is one thing the Hawks DON'T need it is Shawn Marion.
                  Especially if it means giving up the 3rd pick
                  "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

                    from Pacers.com:

                    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_070626.html

                    So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That


                    By Conrad Brunner | June 26, 2007

                    So what are we, exactly, to make of the steady stream of trade rumors involving Jermaine O'Neal? Does all the smoke mean there's fire somewhere? Or has it only obscured our vision?


                    For the moment, we can safely say the recently reported four-team trade that would send O'Neal to Boston, bring Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum to the Pacers, send Kevin Garnett to the Lakers and a variety of elements to Minnesota is dead. In fact, it was apparently dead before it was reported. Sometimes, you see, parties involved in such trade discussions, sensing things are falling apart, leak strategic details to the media in an attempt to use public reaction to rekindle the deal.

                    "I've talked to (Minnesota boss Kevin) McHale but there was never anything mentioned about a four-way deal," Pacers President Larry Bird said Tuesday during his pre-NBA Draft press briefing. "Obviously when Kevin Garnett and players like that are out there you usually call to see what's happening. There's a lot of speculation out there. We do get phone calls every once in awhile not only about Jermaine but about some of our other players. Right now it's just all speculation."

                    Coach Jim O'Brien has made no attempt to mask his interest in coaching O'Neal. Bird likewise said he hopes the franchise forward will be back.

                    "I hope so," he said. "I've always said that. He's a very talented player that brings a lot to the table. He's had all of his success here. Hopefully we can all be on the same page and go forward with him."

                    And yet O'Neal's name keeps popping up in rumors like some kind of Website Whack-A-Mole, vanishing here and reappearing over there. To be sure, there are bound to be plenty of teams interested but the early approach in these situations when a star player is perceived to be disenchanted is to try to leverage the player's unhappiness into forcing his team to make an unfavorable deal. Nobody wants to pay full price for O'Neal, just like nobody seems to be willing to pay full price for Bryant or Garnett.

                    Not yet, anyway.

                    "He's an awful good player and any time you have a player of his caliber you've got to be very careful," Bird said. "And if you do trade him you have to make sure you get something back. But it's all speculation. Hopefully we can do something that makes our team better whether it's Jermaine or whoever. I just hate to give up on a guy with that much talent.

                    "Am I shopping Jermaine? We listen to everything that comes our way but as far as calling people and putting him out there on the block, no."

                    Rarely have two players of the magnitude of Bryant and Garnett been on the market concurrently, but this could actually mark the official beginning of a trend. O'Neal is a similar example, a star that hasn't exactly demanded a trade but made it clear he doesn't want to stick around if his team isn't dramatically improved. There are reports Paul Pierce will follow suit in Boston.

                    Bird believes Bryant will remain with the Lakers, but he's less certain Garnett will return to Minnesota.

                    "It'd be very hard to trade the best player in the league," he said, "So I'm sure the Lakers are doing everything they can to mend the fences. He's such a talent … it's a little discouraging to see him try to get out of there.

                    "Kevin Garnett's been with Minnesota for years and there comes a time when both parties might want to just separate."

                    What these stars may not realize is their contracts are a major obstacle to their team's success. O'Neal, for example, reportedly will earn nearly $20 million next season, which represents about one-third of the team's total salary cap figure.

                    "If you really look around our league, what's happened in the last few years is so-called superstars, high-paid players get these extensions, and once they get their extensions and they know they're not going to have a very good team they always want out," Bird said. "That's very discouraging. It's hard to trade a player that makes a third of your cap because other teams can't take on the salaries. But they demand to be traded and it puts a lot of pressure on the franchises. …

                    "So, if you sign a guy to an extension or sign a guy to a big contract, you better know he's able to carry your franchise."

                    Whether O'Neal can do that remains to be seen. What the Pacers do not intend to do, however, is to enter a rebuilding phase, which should please the team's leading scorer, rebounder and shot-blocker.

                    "We're not rebuilding," Bird said. "And if I have a say in it I'll never rebuild. You take what you've got and you add to it. I don't believe in dropping to the very bottom to build yourself up. … You have to add to your core group and build from there."


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

                    INTERNOTES …

                    Bird said the team has not yet decided whether to pick up the option on reserve guard Orien Greene. The deadline is June 30. "It's probably a decision we'll make on the 29th," he said. "We feel like we need four point guards. He really didn't get a chance to play much last year. After the first exhibition he broke his finger and was out for an extended period of time. He's very talented. He's got great size and I think he could be a great fit here. It's just what direction we're going to go after looking at all these other players."

                    It appears Rick Carlisle no longer is a candidate for the Sonics' head coaching job. Reports out of Seattle indicate Spurs assistant P.J. Carlesimo and former Timberwolves coach Dwayne Casey are the top contenders. Expect a decision sometime before summer-league play begins next Friday but not necessarily before the draft.

                    Kenny Anderson said a few years ago he'd love to return to Atlanta as a coach, but his sights were set on his alma mater of Georgia Tech. Well, he is back in Atlanta and he is coaching, but not quite as fantasized. The former Pacers guard was hired last week as head coach for the Atlanta Krunk of the CBA.

                    Johnny Davis, who spent last season on Carlisle's staff with the Pacers, was the first of the former assistants to land a job. He was hired as the top assistant to new Memphis coach Marc Iavaroni.

                    As a result of his guilty plea last week to a felony count of criminal recklessness, Stephen Jackson not only faces a $5,000 fine and 100 hours of community service, he could face a mandatory 10-game suspension depending on how the NBA interprets his case. Marquis Daniels and Jamaal Tinsley face a Sept. 10 trial date for their role in the incident.

                    Ron Artest told The Indianapolis Star last week he regrets his decision to request a trade from the Pacers in December 2005. "Certain guys in the league are mentally tough and always ready," Artest said. "But certain guys like me, because of how I grew up, I act out at times. Then you think about it and say, 'Man, I wish I would have gone about that differently.' It's almost like saying you wish you grew up differently. When you grow up like I did, you think that every day, every second is a life-or-death situation, but it's not so. If I could do it again, I would never (have given up on) that team. I had no reason to complain. I had a career year under Carlisle. What was I complaining about? When I look back on it, it was just stupid. Your ego takes over you sometimes." The Kings forward, who has maintained his family's residence in suburban Indianapolis, is once again the subject of trade rumors – none involving the Pacers.
                    "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
                      And JO is younger, with less mileage. JO is most definitely not washed up.


                      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.

                      Since86's premise is not preposterous at all. Players demonstrate fairly early in their careers if they are injury prone or can play the entire season consistently.

                      Did Karl Malone all the sudden break down(aside from an injury at the age of 40 in his final year)? He played a ton of minutes when he was 25, a ton of minutes when he was 30, and a ton of minutes when he was 35.

                      When Malone was 39 he still played 2936 minutes in 81 games. In JO's "best year" here (03-04), he just played 2788 minutes in 78 games. If you give JO 35 minutes for 3 games to make up the difference, he is still just at 2893. In 01-02, when he was 38, Malone played in 3040 minutes.

                      JO has NEVER played 3000 minutes in a season, yet Malone played in over 3000 at freaking 38 years old(averaging 22.7 points). This was his 17th year in the league and by my count he had just missed up to 7 games at that point.

                      But if JO and Malone had been playing at the same time and were being compared 11/12 years into their careers, would you have said that since the Mailman had logged alot more minutes that his career would be over quicker than JO's?

                      By playing nearly every game year in and year out (as Malone did at the same stages of his career) , I would say that Garnett has about a 75% chance of putting up numbers at age 38 similar to the ones Malone put up. I would say that JO has virtually no chance, given the fact that he consistantly gets injured at a relatively young age and has all but proven he can't go 75+ games year in and year out.

                      My point in bringing Malone in as an example to this is that your assumption that KG having alot of "miles" on him will give him only a couple of good years left is just flat out wrong.

                      After reading all of your posts in this thread, it sounds to me like you are making the incorrect presumption that every player has the same body clock and that because KG has played in "1.5 times" many games as JO means that he less time left. The whole "KG playing 1.5 times as many games" implies that they are on the same playing field, and that every single human being has a set amount of possible NBA games that they can play in them. That just isn't the case.

                      That is a bogus presumption to make.

                      KG has been in the league for 12 years. He has logged in 35536 minutes. Through the Mailman's first 12 years, he logged in 36799 minutes. The Mailman still had 5 great years left in him after that. Both of these guys showed in their 20's that they could endure season after season, and that carried Malone into his 30's. KG has shown no signs of slowing down either.

                      The trends you set early in your career tend to stay the same through the rest of it.

                      Conversley, look at a guy like Webber. Webber used to get injured a ton early on in his career and (suprise suprise), got injured in his 30's.

                      From 2000-2007 (his Pacer years), JO has played in 472 games. During that same time period, KG has played in in 560 games.

                      KG has shown season after season that he can play at a high level, and not miss many games. Jesus, wasn't everyone happy when JO was able to play in 69 games last year? KG has never had a season below 76!

                      "Mileage" isn't near as important as the body's endurance to the year after year grind of the NBA season. The most important thing is trends. My god, these are guys that have been in the NBA 11 and 12 years. Their trends should be pretty obvious by now. Some guys like Malone and KG just have the bodies/endurance to play about 80 games year after year. Some guys like Webber and JO can't.

                      I'm still trying to figure out how a guy can average 13 rebounds a game and be soft.

                      KG had an "off" year by his standards by shooting .480 from the field. That's still world's better than JO's .436, which is really inexcusable for a "post" player.
                      Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-26-2007, 06:47 PM.

                      Comment


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

                        Karl Malone was built like a tank, of course he wasn't injury prone.

                        JO's injury problems are related to how he was used. At the time, I was a big fan of having JO bulk up and be our primary interior player. As it turns out, I was wrong, his body can't handle that.

                        I guess everyone believes that JO can't get back to 240-250 lbs and play more explosively if he's playing alongside another legit interior force. Good luck with that assumption. If he gets the opportunity to play alongside a legit big body at the C, I think we'll see the re-emergence of JO, circa 2002-2004. That would be the MVP-candidate JO, for those with short memories. And if he's paired with Kobe or Pierce and a legit bigman, I wouldn't want to be relying on the Lakers/ Celtics draft pick to rebuild my team with, because its going to be in the high twenties.

                        When KG reguarly plays with his back to the basket, like a 7-footer is supposed to do, and defends the post (both of which JO does), then we'll talk about toughness.

                        KG is soft, JO is injury prone. Either way, you lose.
                        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 blanket View Post
                          from Pacers.com:

                          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/web_070626.html

                          So Far, O’Neal Trade Rumors Just That


                          By Conrad Brunner | June 26, 2007

                          So what are we, exactly, to make of the steady stream of trade rumors involving Jermaine O'Neal? Does all the smoke mean there's fire somewhere? Or has it only obscured our vision?


                          For the moment, we can safely say the recently reported four-team trade that would send O'Neal to Boston, bring Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum to the Pacers, send Kevin Garnett to the Lakers and a variety of elements to Minnesota is dead. In fact, it was apparently dead before it was reported. Sometimes, you see, parties involved in such trade discussions, sensing things are falling apart, leak strategic details to the media in an attempt to use public reaction to rekindle the deal.

                          "I've talked to (Minnesota boss Kevin) McHale but there was never anything mentioned about a four-way deal," Pacers President Larry Bird said Tuesday during his pre-NBA Draft press briefing. "Obviously when Kevin Garnett and players like that are out there you usually call to see what's happening. There's a lot of speculation out there. We do get phone calls every once in awhile not only about Jermaine but about some of our other players. Right now it's just all speculation."

                          Coach Jim O'Brien has made no attempt to mask his interest in coaching O'Neal. Bird likewise said he hopes the franchise forward will be back.

                          "I hope so," he said. "I've always said that. He's a very talented player that brings a lot to the table. He's had all of his success here. Hopefully we can all be on the same page and go forward with him."

                          And yet O'Neal's name keeps popping up in rumors like some kind of Website Whack-A-Mole, vanishing here and reappearing over there. To be sure, there are bound to be plenty of teams interested but the early approach in these situations when a star player is perceived to be disenchanted is to try to leverage the player's unhappiness into forcing his team to make an unfavorable deal. Nobody wants to pay full price for O'Neal, just like nobody seems to be willing to pay full price for Bryant or Garnett.

                          Not yet, anyway.

                          "He's an awful good player and any time you have a player of his caliber you've got to be very careful," Bird said. "And if you do trade him you have to make sure you get something back. But it's all speculation. Hopefully we can do something that makes our team better whether it's Jermaine or whoever. I just hate to give up on a guy with that much talent.

                          "Am I shopping Jermaine? We listen to everything that comes our way but as far as calling people and putting him out there on the block, no."

                          Rarely have two players of the magnitude of Bryant and Garnett been on the market concurrently, but this could actually mark the official beginning of a trend. O'Neal is a similar example, a star that hasn't exactly demanded a trade but made it clear he doesn't want to stick around if his team isn't dramatically improved. There are reports Paul Pierce will follow suit in Boston.

                          Bird believes Bryant will remain with the Lakers, but he's less certain Garnett will return to Minnesota.

                          "It'd be very hard to trade the best player in the league," he said, "So I'm sure the Lakers are doing everything they can to mend the fences. He's such a talent … it's a little discouraging to see him try to get out of there.

                          "Kevin Garnett's been with Minnesota for years and there comes a time when both parties might want to just separate."

                          What these stars may not realize is their contracts are a major obstacle to their team's success. O'Neal, for example, reportedly will earn nearly $20 million next season, which represents about one-third of the team's total salary cap figure.

                          "If you really look around our league, what's happened in the last few years is so-called superstars, high-paid players get these extensions, and once they get their extensions and they know they're not going to have a very good team they always want out," Bird said. "That's very discouraging. It's hard to trade a player that makes a third of your cap because other teams can't take on the salaries. But they demand to be traded and it puts a lot of pressure on the franchises. …

                          "So, if you sign a guy to an extension or sign a guy to a big contract, you better know he's able to carry your franchise."

                          Whether O'Neal can do that remains to be seen. What the Pacers do not intend to do, however, is to enter a rebuilding phase, which should please the team's leading scorer, rebounder and shot-blocker.

                          "We're not rebuilding," Bird said. "And if I have a say in it I'll never rebuild. You take what you've got and you add to it. I don't believe in dropping to the very bottom to build yourself up. … You have to add to your core group and build from there."
                          I thought this statement was sort of...well, ironic.
                          I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                            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.
                            What's the absolute best offer that the Lakers can offer McHale? They already are offering the full buffet.

                            I'm guessing they want the Lakers to get something else in return for Odom....as in getting a 3rd team involved....but what else can the Lakers give to a 3rd team that they aren't offering McHale?
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Jay View Post
                              KG is soft, JO is injury prone. Either way, you lose.
                              KG is soft?

                              That is crazy. He shoots more jump shots because he hits a higher percentage of them than JO does of his shots in the paint. He probably scores a much higher percentage of his shots in the paint too.

                              I honestly believe that the talent gap between JO and KG is BIGGER than the talent gap between Sarunas and Tinsley.

                              KG is better at every basketball skill I can think of except helping out a hapless PG defenders by coming up with a shot block, perhaps since he has a wealth of experience playing with a hapless PG defender.

                              JO is probably the best 43% shooting post player ever. Of course most post players are unemployed if they continue at that pace. We will see if the dump it to JO offense by Carlisle has artificially pumped up his scoring numbers sufficiently to have tangible trade value.
                              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                              Comment


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

                                I still believe the major attraction on draft day is KG going to the Bulls.
                                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X