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

Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

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

  • #61
    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

    Originally posted by wjs View Post
    Interesting thread.

    A Laker trade -- who for whom -- should depend on two factors:

    1. Bynum -- What is the considered probability he will be an all-star player? No one knows for sure. IMO, that probability is high enough to go get him, take the risk. I think Bird/Donnie and the scouts believe that also.

    2. Odom -- He's a good player. The questions are, is he worth a star backcourt player to another team, in trade? Is he worth signing to an extension and keep in Indy? Will he be "happy" here? Does Odom here take away P.T. from Danny, Ike, Shawne, et. al., and either create a problem or make someone expendable? IMO, the answer with respect to Odom is, happily, that it does not matter. If Odom is worth getting and keeping (or trading), then do so, and trade one or more of our other forwards to LA (Granger) to get him. If not, then forget him, let L.A. keep him, and focus on getting "equal" value in other forms: Critt or Farmar, a future #1, Kwame, etc., Walton (?), etc.

    Jermaine is an all-star, true. However, he has more value to a team with a legit superstar (which JO is not) than he does to Indiana. We must capture that "more value" in a way that makes sense for us, makes us better. Plus, he has a killer-bad contract. Those are the reasons to deal JO, for sure.

    So ... Get Bynum. Get Odom if it makes sense. Trade Granger if necessary to get Odom. Get one of LA's young PG's. Get Kwame. Get a future #1 if possible. Trade Jermaine, for sure.

    If I were king, and if LO would be "happy" here (with or without an extension), then I would offer a package of [Jermaine, Murphy (or Tinsley if Murph does not fly), and Granger] for a package of [Bynum, Odom, Critt or Farmar (I'd take Critt), Kwame, and a future #1] + filler either way to make it work.

    Or some variant thereof.

    If LO would not be "happy" here or not "fit" here, then I'd still do a deal, either trading LO to a 3rd team for a quality guard or dropping him from the deal entirely, keeping Granger, and focus on obtaining "equal value" which would include clearing cap space.)
    Pacers trade their two best players, one who is young and rising for an unproven younger player and Odom? That would completely finish the job of destroying the Pacers for the next 5 years, imho. The Pacers would be the laughinstock of the league, if you had JO and Granger would you trade them for that?

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

      Originally posted by The_Showtime View Post
      Of course Pacers don't necessaily need to make trade with us, but it is best trade deal available if they plan on rebuilding. Having Bynum & salary cap filler is all you guys really need, except uh...you guys looking to get something big in return for JO which won't happening given the circumstance that at this point of JO's career and his contract, not many teams want to touch it.

      Here is what Bird thinks about Rebuilding
      ( this response is towards the bottom )

      "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."
      While some of us disagree with this ( hence many responses in this thread just to get Bynum and whatever else the Lakers can give a lowly team like the Pacers ), some of us also suspect that the reason why the Pacers want Odom is becaues they want to remain competitive so that they can make a run for the Playoffs. Honestly, I don't know how far Odom can get us in any Playoff run ( which probably isn't far )....but I know that if Bird has decided that he wants to "retool" instead of "rebuild".....Odom will give us a better chance at getting to the Playoffs then Kwame. Getting Bynum also helps us reach that goal ( especially in a weak Eastern Conference ) while giving us a better chance to rebuild for the long term. You have to keep in mind that the Pacer's mantra of "simply making the Playoffs" is the guiding light that the Pacers have been following for the last couple of seasons. I believe that TPTB think that once we get to the Playoffs....anything can happen...whether you're an 8th seed...or the top seed.

      BTW....I'm with Eindar....the reason that I want Odom isn't because I agree with Bird and his "retooling" plans....it's because I want to get the most value out of trading JONeal. Whether we let him go for nothing or move him for players to fit our needs....like it or not......whether he fits in with the Pacers long-term goals or not.....Odom has more value then Kwame does. That's the bottomline....getting the most value in return out of trading our Franchise player.
      Last edited by CableKC; 06-30-2007, 09:24 AM.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

        I think, and I've said this from the beginning, you should be able to get a young guy with potential, a draft pick, an above average player, and salary dump for JO. I don't blame LA for not doing this, they want to get a steal. If they include Odom in a trade and its not Garnett then it is a lateral movement or at the least not a championship move. I think it makes LA somewhat better, but not on the Phoenix, SA, and Dallas level, but you can't usually make that jump unless someone is willing to make a wildly uneven trade.

        LA should do this trade cuz it makes them better, then go from there, imo.

        The Pacers should not do this move because they can do better, imo.

        LA doing nothing is disasterous. Pacers doing nothing is potentially disasterous, but potentially okay, as younger guys get better and a new coaching philosophy changes the team in a weak weak conference.

        Also, if the NJ trade is on the table, I think its a better trade anyway.

        Then what does LA do? Especially since their Zach Randolph parachute is gone. I would think even LA fans would acknowledge that JO is at least the second best option behind Garnett.

        Again, what does LA do if JO goes to NJ and Garnett to somewhere else on July 10th?
        Last edited by Speed; 06-30-2007, 09:32 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

          I think Odom is a really good player. Probably in the vecinity of JO good. Not a superstar, but a really good 2nd or 3rd option. Of course, they have vastly different games and that can be a big factor depending on the team context in which they're placed.

          I have to think getting Odom at the expense of throwing on Granger would only be for the purpose of moving him along immediately for help at another position. The reason I say this is that, although some would contend he would cause a logjam with Danny/Ike/Shawne, it's only with those guys that Odom makes us anything near a threat in the East post season. Odom minus Granger just makes us like a 6-8 seed top ceiling IMO so what's the point if Bird DOES NOT want to rebuild.

          Looking at all these perspectives and the LA and NJ trade scenarios, if the Lakers won't budge and add Odom to Bynum then I am going to deal with the Nets. And if the Lakers did OK both guys for JO, I would look to trade either Ike and/or Jeff for backcourt help. Probably Ike b/c Bynum theoretically becomes the low post threat on offense and I'm just not conviced Ike will get it done over the long haul at his stature. Odom could play a perimeter oriented 4 with Bynum and Granger.

          Finally, all this Odom stuff is contingent on him wanting to play here. I think that is another major hurdle to the LA-Indy deal.

          EDIT: Pau Gasol could be a significant move for LA, but only if they don't have to give up Odom to get him. It's the same argument as in the Pacer negotiations. Add Gasol and you have a post presence on O with some rebounding. But if Odom goes in the deal you're still back to just two legit options, Gasol and Kobe.

          Without looking up salaries, I assume P. Gasol's is pretty hefty so how does LA reconcile that without Odom being involved? Is it possible? Also, while Gasol brings a solid low post game offensively, you still have no defensive presence on the interior near that of JOs. So I don't see how a Gasol trade really nets you as much as adding JO.
          Last edited by D-BONE; 06-30-2007, 10:09 AM.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Pacers trade their two best players, one who is young and rising for an unproven younger player and Odom? That would completely finish the job of destroying the Pacers for the next 5 years, imho.
            You overvalue Granger. Yes, I would move him if (a) it made sense to get Odom (a better player right now) and (b) to dump Murphy's contract. I'd keep Shawne vs. Granger, if forced to choose.

            You definitely overvalue JO. I'd be tempted to move him for picks and cap space alone just to remove his killer contract.

            Someone's power rating this week had Pacers ranked #30. Out of 30 teams. The Pacers, as they stand now, are going nowhere, effectively "destroyed" already.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

              Originally posted by wjs View Post
              You overvalue Granger. Yes, I would move him if (a) it made sense to get Odom (a better player right now) and (b) to dump Murphy's contract. I'd keep Shawne vs. Granger, if forced to choose.

              You definitely overvalue JO. I'd be tempted to move him for picks and cap space alone just to remove his killer contract.

              Someone's power rating this week had Pacers ranked #30. Out of 30 teams. The Pacers, as they stand now, are going nowhere, effectively "destroyed" already.
              If that is the premise, then yes I think you are correct.

              Granger will be average at best (which he already is), JO is just and only just a salary burden, and the Pacers are the worst team in the league.

              I disagree with everyone of those premises, by the way.

              Then the Pacers for sure shouldn't do the Laker deal they should be looking for draft picks and salary dump only. Start with nothing, but a desire to get the #1 overall pick the next 3 years and hope that one of those picks turn into exceptional players.

              Also, I would be interested to see the site or reference that had the Pacers the very worst team in the league, just to see the reasoning, maybe I would agree and change my mind.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                If the Lakers think Bynum/Odom is too much for JO, then I say screw them. And apparently TPTB agree with me.

                Odom is good but a lot worse than JO. Adding a project (Bynum) to an Odom deal makes it even. If the Lakers can't cough that up, they can enjoy Gasol's stellar defense for the next few years. We'll find a better deal elsewhere... or god forbid, just KEEP the 20-10-3 player we have.
                You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                  Originally posted by oneofthesedays View Post
                  Guys I agree with pretty much everything you are saying.

                  I just don't see where Odom fits on your team. The Pacers aren't going to magically become contenders in the East with him on the squad. He's going to cost a lot of money over the next 2 years, and you guys have a lot of bad contracts already. Might as well accept that next year is going to be a bust and see if you can get a nice lottery pick out of it. What's the point in barely scraping the playoffs every year, it's only going to hurt your team in the long run.

                  Your better off taking our young prospects and hoping some of them pan out. If Bynum develops into a legit center this trade will have already been worth it. You'll have your center for the next 10 years. Add in Crittenton, Kwame, plus whatever other fillers it takes and you have some solid young talent and a nice expiring K in Kwame. I know it's not ideal, but right now it doesn't look like there is anything better out there.

                  I agree on paper this trade is lopsided towards LA. But looking at what your team needs right now it just doesn't make sense to do Odom+Bynum for JO straight up. You say that with JO gone you'll have no #1 scoring option, do you really think LO will fulfill that role? He's barely a 2nd option on our team.
                  We don't necessarily want to keep Odom, but there's no other combination from your roster that is worth us giving up JO. We would likely want to flip Odom for some backcourt help or something.

                  We aren't in a position where we have to trade JO. If he really wants to leave Indy, he can opt out at the end of the season and give us an instant $20 million in cap relief.

                  The problem is, a lot of Lakers fans believe that Odom is nearly as good as JO, and he isn't.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                    Originally posted by The_Showtime View Post
                    First of I'm a Lakers fan too. I just want to share my thought on this particular issue.

                    That guy oneofthesedays is correct, no way the Lakers trade Bynum/LO for JO. But I also understand where the Pacers fans are going at. Nobody want to take a risk on a "potential" player and bunch of craps from the Lakers for an all-star player like JO. Then lets discuss which franchise gets hurt more if both sides stay put ok. The two biggest difference between the Lakers/Pacers franchise, no disrespect to Pacers fan btw, but the Lakers are a team known to win and are not satisfy with being mediocre. Certainly not in the eyes of Hollywood where celebrities buy season tickets just to see the Lakers being mediocre. Well, for the Pacers organization, from the fan perspective being mediocre is acceptable although not something y'all want.

                    Therefore my point is, if Lakers end up not trading for JO, we have other option that can improve our team like acquiring Paul Gasol (there is a deeper reason why we draft his younger brother Marc Gasol if you guys haven't notice), and still be competitive or maybe a contender with Kobe/Paul/LO. But the Pacers? Keeping JO is a disaster. The best the Pacers can go is compete for that last Eastern Conference playoff spot. Then again, the Pacers can trade JO for Krstic, Jefferson, Collins. But think twice, and honestly do you guys really think they can get you guys deep in the playoff? Oh please! Kristic just got a season ending injury and there is still a lot of doubt as to whether both Krstic and Jefferson can play at a 110% like in the past. So my question is why not trying to unload the huge contract of JO (20 millions) and take a risk on the potential of Bynum with a solid PG like Farmar, while gaining some cap relief in Kwame Brown (who is still a very serviceable center btw)? Also, Indiana is not an attractive place for free agency (LA Lakers have another advantage on this issue btw).

                    Looks at Portland, Orlando, and Seattle, they're already start rebuilding. The point is you guys need to start rebuilding and catchup to those teams. The best scenarios for the Pacers to rebuild are through young players, taking risk on "potential" player, and through the draft. Why not suffering maybe 1 or 2 year of losing, and maybe getting lucky and end up with a young franchise player through the draft while still having Bynum, Iko, and Granger as your core? And the best way to rebuild is through a center.

                    Like I said, Pacers lose nothing if Bynum ends up a bust. At least you guys get a year earlier in your rebuilding process. If your team think they can still compete for championship or if you think JO would be happy coming back for the Pacers after hearing his name bouncing around like a ping pong, uhhh think again! The JO experience is over.
                    Sadly, this is the thinking of a lot of Lakers fans. They believe that they're entitled to winning championships and every other team in the league should just bend over for them.

                    That is NOT how it works.

                    If the Lakers had other serious means of getting a JO-level player, they would have done so already. Pau Gasol is not as good as JO, and is not going to make the Lakers any better. KG is better, and the Lakers were rejected in their efforts to get him, proving that a Bynum/Odom package is not good enough for a player of KG's caliber.

                    As for JO's contract, if he wants to, he can opt out next year and give us an instant $20 million in savings. I would rather do that, or ride out the remainder of his contract, than trade him for garbage.

                    The JO experiment is over? I could just as easily say that the Kobe experiment is over. The difference is, he's publically stated over and over that he wants out, while JO has, at most, said the same behind closed doors. Advantage: Pacers.

                    Sorry Lakers fans; you have to give quality in order to get quality.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                      I'm going against the grain here let the Lakers keep Lamar Odom, he's owed 27 mil the next 2 years wants a 3 year extention 48 mil range to be happy here . Plus he had his 2nd shoulder surgery recently.

                      I'll take Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown (surgery on ankle and shoulder this off season) and his 9 mil expiring contract , a resigned Luke Walton 3.5 a mil range , Javaras Crittenden and a 2008 #1.

                      Luke Walton is basicly to trade for a young sg either at time of trade or after mandatory waiting period. Brown's contract removes 9 mil in cap space from the roster.

                      In Bynum and Crittenden you add 2 very young building pieces at center and point guard to the youth foundation. The draft pick adds another piece after the season.

                      Bynum and Crittenden learn on the job . Bird can say we aren't rebuilding but we know even with JO this is not a conference finals team. With a new coach and system this team will take time to jell JO or no JO. If as O'Brien says he wants to run a quicker offense does JO even fit?

                      Ike Diogu ,Troy Murphy, Jeff Foster, Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown and David Harrison leaves you 6 bigs to play to play 48 minutes at the pf/c spots.

                      Danny Granger, and Shawne Williams man the sf. Perhaps even Walton if you wait to trade him.

                      Mike Dunleavy, Marquis Daniels , Kareem Rush ( if he makes the team) handle the sg spot

                      Jamaal Tinsley , Javaras Crittenden , Daniels occassionally , and if resigned Darrell Armstrong handle the point.

                      It may or may not be a play off team , but Bynum, Diogu, Granger , Williams and Crittenden are 5 young players to build around who gain valuable playing time to develop . In addition for the 2008 Draft you have 2 -#1's ours (perhaps lottery) and the Lakers to add 2 more young pieces.
                      Last edited by diamonddave00; 06-30-2007, 11:40 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                        Originally posted by wjs View Post
                        You overvalue Granger. Yes, I would move him if (a) it made sense to get Odom (a better player right now) and (b) to dump Murphy's contract. I'd keep Shawne vs. Granger, if forced to choose.

                        You definitely overvalue JO. I'd be tempted to move him for picks and cap space alone just to remove his killer contract.
                        You mean just like LakerFans overvalue Odom?

                        Originally posted by wjs View Post
                        Someone's power rating this week had Pacers ranked #30. Out of 30 teams. The Pacers, as they stand now, are going nowhere, effectively "destroyed" already.
                        Okay....so....just because someone's ranking has the Pacers at 30 means that they should take a deal that they clearly do not want?

                        I really hope that Kobe does force a trade...that way...Laker fans can respond to these type of posts when they don't get equal value trade offers/suggestions for Kobe.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                          Originally posted by Speed View Post
                          Granger will be average at worst (which he already is) and an slightly above average player in the future , JO is just and only just a salary burden, and the Pacers are the worst team in the league.
                          Fixed. As far as we know...we haven't reached Granger's ceiling yet. At worst....what we see of Granger now is average....our hope is that he can improve on his game, improve and be a slightly better then average SF.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                            Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                            I'm going against the grain here let the Lakers keep Lamar Odom, he's owed 27 mil the next 2 years wants a 3 year extention 48 mil range to be happy here . Plus he had his 2nd shoulder surgery recently.

                            I'll take Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown (surgery on ankle and shoulder this off season) and his 9 mil expiring contract , a resigned Luke Walton 3.5 a mil range , Javaras Crittenden and a 2008 #1.

                            Luke Walton is basicly to trade for a young sg either at time of trade or after mandatory waiting period. Brown's contract removes 9 mil in cap space from the roster.

                            In Bynum and Crittenden you add 2 very young building pieces at center and point guard to the youth foundation. The draft pick adds another piece after the season.

                            Bynum and Crittenden learn on the job . Bird can say we aren't rebuilding but we know even with JO this is not a conference finals team. With a new coach and system this team will take time to jell JO or no JO. If as O'Brien says he wants to run a quicker offense does JO even fit?

                            Ike Diogu ,Troy Murphy, Jeff Foster, Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown and David Harrison leaves you 6 bigs to play to play 48 minutes at the pf/c spots.

                            Danny Granger, and Shawne Williams man the sf. Perhaps even Walton if you wait to trade him.

                            Mike Dunleavy, Marquis Daniels , Kareem Rush ( if he makes the team) handle the sg spot

                            Jamaal Tinsley , Javaras Crittenden , Daniels occassionally , and if resigned Darrell Armstrong handle the point.

                            It may or may not be a play off team , but Bynum, Diogu, Granger , Williams and Crittenden are 5 young players to build around who gain valuable playing time to develop . In addition for the 2008 Draft you have 2 -#1's ours (perhaps lottery) and the Lakers to add 2 more young pieces.
                            Seeing as though we aren't getting both Lamar and Bynum, I love this trade. We get two young prospects in Crittenton and Bynum and I think they could work well on this team. Not to mention we would be set for the future.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                              Originally posted by diamonddave00 View Post
                              I'm going against the grain here let the Lakers keep Lamar Odom, he's owed 27 mil the next 2 years wants a 3 year extention 48 mil range to be happy here . Plus he had his 2nd shoulder surgery recently.

                              I'll take Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown (surgery on ankle and shoulder this off season) and his 9 mil expiring contract , a resigned Luke Walton 3.5 a mil range , Javaras Crittenden and a 2008 #1.

                              Luke Walton is basicly to trade for a young sg either at time of trade or after mandatory waiting period. Brown's contract removes 9 mil in cap space from the roster.

                              In Bynum and Crittenden you add 2 very young building pieces at center and point guard to the youth foundation. The draft pick adds another piece after the season.

                              Bynum and Crittenden learn on the job . Bird can say we aren't rebuilding but we know even with JO this is not a conference finals team. With a new coach and system this team will take time to jell JO or no JO. If as O'Brien says he wants to run a quicker offense does JO even fit?

                              Ike Diogu ,Troy Murphy, Jeff Foster, Andrew Bynum , Kwame Brown and David Harrison leaves you 6 bigs to play to play 48 minutes at the pf/c spots.

                              Danny Granger, and Shawne Williams man the sf. Perhaps even Walton if you wait to trade him.

                              Mike Dunleavy, Marquis Daniels , Kareem Rush ( if he makes the team) handle the sg spot

                              Jamaal Tinsley , Javaras Crittenden , Daniels occassionally , and if resigned Darrell Armstrong handle the point.

                              It may or may not be a play off team , but Bynum, Diogu, Granger , Williams and Crittenden are 5 young players to build around who gain valuable playing time to develop . In addition for the 2008 Draft you have 2 -#1's ours (perhaps lottery) and the Lakers to add 2 more young pieces.
                              Although I partially agree with you....but doesn't this go against Bird and JO'Bs comment that they don't want to rebuild...but retool?

                              I really think that TPTB really thinks that we can make a run at the Playoffs ( remember their mantra........"simply make the playoffs" ) in the LEastern Conference if they had Odom. This is one of those situations where TPTB want to have their cake ( getting Odom ) and eat it ( getting Bynum as well ).

                              BTW....if I was forced to choose a Non-Odom deal from the Lakers...I would want the deal that you suggested....but adding in $$$$ and some 2nd round picks. Why ask for more? Cuz the Pacers are clearly taking the lesser deal....in fact...I would want way more ( additional 2010 protected 1st round pick ) simply because I feel that this is the price the Lakers have to pay in order to keep Odom.

                              Also...when is the date when you can resign/sign FAs?

                              July 12th?
                              Last edited by CableKC; 06-30-2007, 12:04 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Is the Lakers trade talks dead.

                                The #1 in 2008 might be a little much but if they want to keep Odom , I'd want Crittenden and the 2008 pick . I'm not interested in Farmar, I want Crittenden . Javaras is bigger , and plays decent defense.

                                Walton may be seen as filler but there are teams who really like him , he has trade value.

                                If they want to keep Bynum , then I want Odom , Crittenden, and Brown's contract. Lamar Odom is very tradable.

                                Unlike the Pacers . I'd take compromise package.

                                I think either way in a compromise trade , Pacers still have a chance at the playoffs . Bird and O'Brien say retool not rebuild even non Odom compromise allows that. To me a rebuilding means making a deal to move salary getting little in return , Bynum , Crittenden to me is more than a little in return add Brown's 9 mil off cap you get quite a bit. Same if compromise is Odom , Crittenden , Brown.

                                Bird's pride of not wanting to miss playoffs may do nothing but cost us parts in a long term run, just to be in the playoffs. If the fans know we are building young and staying competitive at the same time , they will come out.

                                Worse is to simply apply a band aid when major surgery is needed , it may cover it up but it doesn't fix it. Pacer fans are smart enough to not be tricked into believing a patch here and here makes us a championship contender. Just making the playoffs no longer is enough here , Pacer fans want , expect and deserve more.
                                Last edited by diamonddave00; 06-30-2007, 12:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X