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

Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

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

  • #76
    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
    Guys, I see a lot of people worried about one player cutting into another's playing time, or holding back their progress, and I just can't figure it out.

    I WANT a situation where there are battles going on for playing time!

    Competition is what makes a player improve. The more talent, the better the training camp, and practices serve to ready this team. And this team needs a lot of "readying". How many players have talked about practicing against Reggie or Artest making them improve their game? A bunch of players have said this.

    What about injuries? How many times have we suffered through one player or another being out with an injury, and the team not having another talented player to plug into that spot?

    What about depth? If O'Brien wants this team to get down the floor as quick as he says, we're going to need fresh legs out there. Not just during a particular game, but all season long.

    The added depth would not only help keep the players fresher longer into the season, but would likely reduce the number of injuries due to fatigue.

    What about later trades? Don't you think Collins' expiring contract would be of value a year from now?

    I just don't understand people not wanting to add TALENT.

    The way people talk about playing time for Diogu or Williams you would think they only had a year left to play. They wil get their time, when it is their time.
    Thank you for that Tom...I thought the concept of earning minutes and starters role was a "geezer" concept. Ya know, old fashioned. Glad to see someone else thinks having talent stacked up is a good thing. As long as it isn't 6 of one position and 1 each for the rest etc.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
      Thank you for that Tom...I thought the concept of earning minutes and starters role was a "geezer" concept. Ya know, old fashioned. Glad to see someone else thinks having talent stacked up is a good thing. As long as it isn't 6 of one position and 1 each for the rest etc.
      I think a lot of us are jaded from the Al Harrington saga...and the Antonio Davis saga...

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
        I think a lot of us are jaded from the Al Harrington saga...and the Antonio Davis saga...

        and the Atlanta Hawks saga?????????
        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          Offensively it doesn't matter if he is a natural small forward or shooting guard - offensively the two positions are or at least can be completely interchangible. So I have no worries at all there. The question is always can he guard his position - and I think he clearly can without question - certainly better than anyone else we currently have.

          I agree that Richard Jefferson can play two guard but is he a good fit for this team playing that position.Bird said he wants shooters well Jefferson doesn't fit that description and we know Daniels and Dunlevy are not great shooters.Where is the perimeter shooting going to come from. Also does Bird and Walsh want to pay this guy 12 million per.Thats alot of money to invest in a player that is probably overpaid.

          The best part of the deal is Kritic. He's only 24 he's improved every year in the league and is a legit scorer down there in the post.Which is a hard thing to find in this league.However bringing him in means that we will have to aquire another powerforward, somebody who is athletic and can rebound/defend.

          Talent wise its not a bad deal, they are both very good players I'm just not so sure if they are the perfect fit for this team.If I could get a third team involved who would be willing to take Jeffersons contract and we could secure a combination of draft picks and young guard who can shoot the ball I would go that route.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

            I highlighted the stuff about JO.


            GOIN’ NOWHERE
            By PETER VECSEY


            July 1, 2007 -- BEFORE I go away for the summer (to camp . . . at least that’s what my family is telling me), there are certain things I need to get off my community chest.
            No, I don’t foresee the Lakers caving to Kobe’s egomaniacal demands for a trade; for no other reason other than the fact each time he runs his mouth, or delegates an ESPN correspondent to do his dirty work, his value increasingly diminishes.

            Only losers like the Knicks, who cannot possibly give L.A. anything equitable in return, are psyched to headline Kobe’s act. I’ve lost count; with the arrival of Zach Randolph, how many desperados has Isiah Thomas invited down from their fences since James Dolan banned Latrell Sprewell and character-issue players just like him from the Garden premises?

            Meanwhile, playoff teams such as the Bulls have backed off Kobe, knowing it’d take too many of their assets to secure him and mindful he’d be unhappy with the sharp dip in talent.

            At the same time, Kevin Garnett and Jermaine O’Neal are looking at Kobe funny. Initially, they were pumped at the prospects of playing alongside such majesty. Now, I’m told, their deepest sympathy is with Shaq; how insufferable life must’ve been winning three straight titles.

            Still, if nothing else, the Buss family is financially far better off holding on to its ace attraction/money maker at least for one more season, a year before Kobe is eligible to become a free agent. The insurgent compulsive repulsive may be a basket case, but he’s a living lock to show up in serrated shape and compete as if on a religious crusade . . . well, at one end, anyway.

            Bottom line: Kobe has evolved into a fake franchise player . . . same as Chris Webber and Tracy McGrady and now Garnett and Jermaine O’Neal. They’re not conceited; they’re convinced they’re bad to the bone, all commanding max money - a lot more in K.G.’s (grandfathered) case.

            All of ’em repeatedly failed to carry their respective teams to the Finals sans another superstar; McGrady can’t even get out of the first round with Yao Ming, as opposed to Allen Iverson and LeBron James, who reached the Supreme Court surrounded by role players.

            Kobe blamed ownership for not providing enough help. I can’t recall if he has offered to cut his salary appreciably to provide management with salary-cap relief. I assume when he re-signed in ’04, he understood the roughly $18M he pockets annually would somewhat reduce management’s personnel options/maneuverability.

            It’s not as if the Lakers haven’t tried to get bigger and better in the wake of Shaq’s trade - Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, Brian Grant, a first and second rounder. The problem is the team’s minimal margin of error. Minus Shaq to fall back on, every roster mistake is monumental; exchanging Butler for Kwame Brown, signing Vladimir Radmanovic to a mid-level exception deal, thinking Robert Horry was obsolete, not retaining Derek Fisher.

            Clearly, the decision makers - the Buss family, Phil Jackson and Mitch Kupchak - folded under the pressure of time running out (the Zen Hen’s three-year contract) and Kobe’s volcano of aggravation and admonishment that erupted publicly a month after L.A. was swept by the Suns in the first round.

            In all fairness to K.G. and J.O., at least they’ve maintained a covert campaign to seek higher ground. I’m positive O’Neal will be traded; had Marcus Williams been added to the Richard Jefferson-Nenad Krstic pot, he’d already be a Net. The tri-pod of Jason Kidd, Vince Carter (count on him re-signing for four years at $15M per) and O’Neal would’ve made Jersey the team to beat in the East.

            Garnett was thisclose to becoming Steve Nash’s sidekick a day or two before the draft. Hawks GM Billy Knight (not one of his owners) nixed a three-way operation that would’ve harvested Amare Stoudemire. Marvin Williams, Tyrone Lue, ZaZa Pachulia and Nos. 3 & 11 would’ve wound up in Minnesota.

            How could Knight reject the chance to obtain a First Team All-League, 25-year-old (Nov. 16), 6-10 forward? The Hawks’ home audience is apathetic. It’s a recurring lottery team that didn’t need to get any younger but just did by adding two underclassmen. Atlanta craves an established inside presence. Rebuffing that opportunity is unfathomable.

            Even more unfathomable than the Suns’ judgment to junk Stoudemire following an extraordinary 61-win season, in which he played a dominant part. Then again, at least Phoenix would be replacing Amare with K.G.

            Ownership (and new VP Steve Kerr) evidently believes the title window of opportunity is fading, so it makes sense to import a finished product (how ironic would it be if Garnett was almost finished?), someone more adept at executing Mike D’Antoni’s defensive half-court system.

            I hear that’s definitely more of a factor in trying to trade Amare for K.G. than his lack of punctuality, whining about shots, whatever. On second thought, I guess Knight was right to pass on Stoudemire; you can’t afford to have an impact player like that dragging your team up pulling that kind of stuff.

            By the way, will we ever get through a preseason, a season, or an offseason - let alone a draft - without a hired hand (or his hired hand) unleashing ultimatums about where he shall and shall not graciously agree to grace himself.

            At least Kobe is certified USDA prime prima donna. At least Garnett and O’Neal have resumes. Yi Jianlian - taken No. 6 by Milwaukee - and his spiritual advisers decided even before the draft they didn’t want to the Bucks to stop here.

            So much so that Senator Herb’s team wasn’t even allowed to show up at Yi’s private LA workout.

            Nothing quite offers harmonic convergence like the quote by Bucks’ GM Larry Harris. “We gave them fair warning . . .”

            Good for him. The last time I looked, when a player made himself available for the draft, he made himself available for the entire draft and didn’t quibble about where he wanted to play.

            Just ask Kobe, er, John Calipari, and Kiki Vandeweghe and Steve Francis. What poetic justice that a guy who refused to play for Vancouver when the Grizzlies drafted him is back in the Northwest as a Blazer.

            peter.vecsey@nypost.com

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

              Hahahaha, I love the first part in bold. Maybe Garnett vetoed the trade to L.A. after all.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                Since we throw around the term "franchise player" quite a bit, I've been wondering what exactly it means. At least Vecsey has given his answer to that question, somebody who makes it to the finals without another star beside him.

                By Vecsey's estimation, then, these are the "franchise players" of the last 15 years:

                LeBron James
                Tim Duncan
                Dirk Nowitzki
                Jason Kidd
                Allen Iverson
                Reggie Miller
                Hakeem Olajuwon
                Patrick Ewing
                Charles Barkley

                Suddenly I don't feel so bad for Jermaine. Even if we'd won in '04 he wouldn't count because he had Reggie. Of course, only Hakeem and Duncan won from that group. And Shaq and Michael don't fit the definition because they had star sidekicks. So the argument might be flawed.
                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                  Seeing Reggie play in 04 mean that doesn't count. It would have been calm Artest that was the other franchise player by that point (he was an all-star that year), and really isn't he (or Reggie) on par with Parker (um, just who did win Finals MVP this year) or Ginobilli. Dirk had Terry going off to help get them to the Finals (and plenty of other talent too).

                  If you mean that it's a player that at some time in their lifespan was ever considered THE star then okay, but to me AI, Hakeem, Lebron and maybe (maybe) Ewing are the only guys who did it without someone else that could carry the load just as much, at least during that year. And if you'll recall the Sixers dealt for a certain ALL-STAR center in order to get to the Finals themselves, the only time AI made it "alone".

                  I mean Reggie had Rik and Jalen for scoring, had Dale for boards and rebounds and toughness. They were all on par then with what Reggie was in 03-04.


                  To me PV contradicts himself here and is grasping at "how could my bold predictions be wrong" straws. JO and KG started thinking "Shaq had it bad"??? Really? Doubtful. And PV tells you why 2 paragraphs later. They are overpaid and can't win without another star, which is his definition of overpaid it seems. So you'd think they'd be praying to be moved and hooked up with an all-time great since according to PV nobody really wants them at that spoiled star price.

                  Sorry PV, I don't buy it on either end. KG and JO AT THE MAX have had talented teams around them and won the most games in their conference on their way to the conference finals.

                  I say it over and over, it's freaking sports, it's not written ahead of time. NO MATTER HOW GOOD YOU ARE you can lose because there are other great players across the line from you trying to do the same thing. Jordan vs Jordan means Michael is going to lose.

                  The Wolves screwed themselves by tampering with Joe Smith and then ran into Spree's bad attitude, plus they lost Cassell. The Pacers obviously ran into Ron Artest. At 2 minutes left in the brawl game they were rolling along and had just pounded their only competition on the road, and basically the entire roster was locked up for many years to come.

                  That's how close it came to being a JO/Pacers dynasty despite his max deal. The key is assembling the right personalities far more than the right price.

                  And back to PV some more, he has no problem ripping on JO's paycheck, but if JO goes to NJ while Vince opts out and signs a new huge contract it's apparently a great thing. Why is JO being a max guy in NJ magically good but in Indy it's bad?

                  I call BS. There are teams that haven't spent a lot on one player and have won and plenty that lost. There are teams with max players that won it all and plenty that lost.

                  "It's sports" explains that a lot more than some balance sheet cyphering. It's a far more complex thing than "they are fake franchise players".

                  Honestly this reads like sour grapes by PV to me, "waa waa, I want big trade action, do your trades like you promised or you're all stupid heads with stupid teams".

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                    I could really see this getting done. I know we stock pile SF's but this just sets us up to make more moves later. Swing Jefferson, Dunleavy or Danny for a nice young SG and we are in buisness.

                    Indiana Trade Breakdown
                    Outgoing
                    Jermaine O'Neal
                    19.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.4 apg in 35.7 minutes
                    Incoming
                    Richard Jefferson
                    16.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.6 minutes
                    Clifford Robinson
                    4.1 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.0 apg in 19.0 minutes
                    Marcus Williams
                    6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.3 apg in 16.6 minutes
                    Nenad Krstic
                    16.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.8 apg in 32.6 minutes

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                      Duncan had Parker and Manu, and original David Robinson.
                      Nowitzki had Josh Howard (who's officially an All-Star in case nobody noticed)
                      Kidd had K-Mart and RJ - both All-Stars with the Nets.
                      Iverson had the starting center in the All-Star game and DPOY in Mt. Mutombo.
                      Reggie had Jalen Rose, who was our best overall player in 199-2000 (20/5/5)
                      Barkley had Kevin Johnson and Dan Marjele
                      Hakeem's second run had Clyde Drexler.
                      Ewing had John Starks, who was an All-Star at the time.


                      I'd say only Hakeem in 94 didn't play next to another (at least at the time) star player.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                        I like the Net's deal a lot. Nenad is a better offensive player right now at 23 than J.O. has ever been in his career. He has to work on his rebounding and defense a little, but he has the ability to be somewhere between Memo and Dirk, probably closer to Dirk to be honest. Needless to say I'm very high on him. Then throw in a former All-Star in Jefferson and a fairly talented young point guard in Williams and I don't think I could pass the deal up.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                          Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                          I could really see this getting done. I know we stock pile SF's but this just sets us up to make more moves later. Swing Jefferson, Dunleavy or Danny for a nice young SG and we are in buisness.


                          Indiana Trade Breakdown
                          Outgoing
                          Jermaine O'Neal
                          19.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.4 apg in 35.7 minutes
                          Incoming
                          Richard Jefferson
                          16.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.6 minutes
                          Clifford Robinson
                          4.1 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.0 apg in 19.0 minutes
                          Marcus Williams
                          6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.3 apg in 16.6 minutes
                          Nenad Krstic

                          16.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.8 apg in 32.6 minutes
                          It'd be cool if we got Uncle Cliffy. We'd have our very own JO-stopper and wouldn't have to worry about him going off on us in the playoffs.
                          Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                            Per the franchise discussion deal, I knew people would narrow it down from my list. I was giving Peter the benefit of the doubt. Yes, you could really make the argument that Hakeem was it (no disrespect to Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, and Robert Horry, of course). Which means there's been 1 franchise player in over 25 years, actually. And of course, he doesn't count because MJ was playing baseball.

                            JO has nothing to be ashamed of, then.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Two Pacers Sources Said Pacers were still talking to NJ late yesterday

                              Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
                              I could really see this getting done. I know we stock pile SF's but this just sets us up to make more moves later. Swing Jefferson, Dunleavy or Danny for a nice young SG and we are in buisness.

                              Indiana Trade Breakdown
                              Outgoing
                              Jermaine O'Neal
                              19.4 ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.4 apg in 35.7 minutes
                              Incoming
                              Richard Jefferson
                              16.3 ppg, 4.4 rpg, 2.7 apg in 35.6 minutes
                              Clifford Robinson
                              4.1 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.0 apg in 19.0 minutes
                              Marcus Williams
                              6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 3.3 apg in 16.6 minutes
                              Nenad Krstic
                              16.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 1.8 apg in 32.6 minutes
                              i still think i'd prefer a 3-way to improve our backcourt for jeff (maybe for terry in dallas?) because shooting would still be a big problem. i'm not a fan of marcus williams but he'd fill a need. i'm not too worried about krstic he had an injury last season but the other seasons he's been relatively healthy. i could at least live with the deal.

                              EDIT: also should be noted that sense vescey said it was almost completed there is about a 99.9% of this not ever nappening.
                              Last edited by avoidingtheclowns; 07-01-2007, 01:43 PM.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                The nets deal makes NO SENSE

                                HOW do you give up JO to the nets without getting back some top talent? The nets would be jumping for joy if all they had to give us was richard jefferson and some crap for JO. And the nets are in the east! boy i'd love to see them in the first round! 1 and 8 seed for both teams is likely if that goes down. And if we thought JO was injured look at jefferson! Question, if jefferson,carter,kidd can't do ANYTHING in the playoffs why would jefferson and granger do anything?atleast with the bynum deal we had someone to build around. I don't see how this trade makes ANY sense for us.
                                "GIMMIE DAT!"-DANGER

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X