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

Kevin Pritchard

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

  • Originally posted by BillS View Post

    IF THAT'S TRUE - but no one knows. Except around here, the truth is always whatever reflects worst on the Pacers. Had we just gone ahead and bid and lost it, we'd have been excoriated for not paying more or for not trading a draft pick instead of bidding. Had we offered a stupid high amount and won we'd have been excoriated for not bidding just enough to beat the amount everyone knows was the max the Bucks would pay or for not doing a trade with a draft pick in order to save some cap space.
    I think this thread and the others about Brogdon prove you wrong about the board always going for the worst. From what I've seen, 90% of the people are happy about going after Brogdon.

    The fact that there's debate about whether there should have been a trade or not is healthy, national people are wondering the same thing too. I don't think it's going for the worst at all to say I really like Brogdon, but I think it was a mistake to make the trade, they should have taken the risk instead. And that's backed up by the reported reason for the Pacers making the trade was not because of a fear of Milwaukee matching.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

      Brogdan was an important piece to a championship team. People believe (I think somewhat correctly) that the only reason they let him go is a financial one, that they wanted to avoid the luxury tax this year because they know they are going into it when Giannis re-signs.

      If that's true, then the picks likely didn't matter. They were very unlikely to match the contract anyway. That's why some people are frustrated they threw some assets that could have been used for a big trade down the line into a trade that likely didn't need them.
      That make sense from the other people's perspective. You stated what I thought was widely believed regarding the luxury tax. Bucks probably wasn't going to match any offers which meant Brogdan "technically" could go to any team giving him an offer sheet. However, it sounds like Indiana was stunned by Bojan going to the Jazz (Rubio/Bojan wasn't a bad pairing in my book, and I think the Rubio signing was structured on the fact Bojan was resigning), and then swiftly switched their attention on Brogdan, since we had a GAPING hole at the PG spot. Indiana offered a sign and trade proposal with draft picks (as stated by BillS) to save cap space for future signings.

      In my mind, it was a good trade. Not sure why the Bucks didn't explore to see if there were better options available though. I'm pretty sure fans of the other teams are screaming at their FO "We could have beaten that! Why didn't our FO outbid Indiana!?".


      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

        I think this thread and the others about Brogdon prove you wrong about the board always going for the worst. From what I've seen, 90% of the people are happy about going after Brogdon.

        The fact that there's debate about whether there should have been a trade or not is healthy, national people are wondering the same thing too. I don't think it's going for the worst at all to say I really like Brogdon, but I think it was a mistake to make the trade, they should have taken the risk instead. And that's backed up by the reported reason for the Pacers making the trade was not because of a fear of Milwaukee matching.
        I wouldn't have taken the risk, because I think people are assuming that Brogdan REALLY wanted to be in Indiana and had no other suitors. I guess it depends if you think the Pacers' FO was playing chicken with the Bucks' FO, and Indiana swerved when they didn't have to. To me, none of the draft picks were worth keeping, unless you're one of those people who is always looking a diamond in the rough from the second round. Plus, why sit on the assets? That's the whole point of getting the picks. We got the picks to use in a future trade, and the future trade was for Brogdan.


        Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

          That make sense from the other people's perspective. You stated what I thought was widely believed regarding the luxury tax. Bucks probably wasn't going to match any offers which meant Brogdan "technically" could go to any team giving him an offer sheet. However, it sounds like Indiana was stunned by Bojan going to the Jazz (Rubio/Bojan wasn't a bad pairing in my book, and I think the Rubio signing was structured on the fact Bojan was resigning), and then swiftly switched their attention on Brogdan, since we had a GAPING hole at the PG spot. Indiana offered a sign and trade proposal with draft picks (as stated by BillS) to save cap space for future signings.

          In my mind, it was a good trade. Not sure why the Bucks didn't explore to see if there were better options available though. I'm pretty sure fans of the other teams are screaming at their FO "We could have beaten that! Why didn't our FO outbid Indiana!?".
          What cap space did they save though? If you believe the Bucks weren't going to match anyway at the current number (which it sounds like you do) the Pacers saved no cap space by going the trade route.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

            I wouldn't have taken the risk, because I think people are assuming that Brogdan REALLY wanted to be in Indiana and had no other suitors. I guess it depends if you think the Pacers' FO was playing chicken with the Bucks' FO, and Indiana swerved when they didn't have to. To me, none of the draft picks were worth keeping, unless you're one of those people who is always looking a diamond in the rough from the second round. Plus, why sit on the assets? That's the whole point of getting the picks. We got the picks to use in a future trade, and the future trade was for Brogdan.
            Wait, are you saying that Brogdon was willing to be traded to Indiana but wasn't willing to sign the exact same offer sheet with Indiana? What's the difference from his perspective?

            You keep the assets because you need them. This team is getting close to being one major move away, but they will need assets to make that major move whenever it comes available.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

              Wait, are you saying that Brogdon was willing to be traded to Indiana but wasn't willing to sign the exact same offer sheet with Indiana? What's the difference from his perspective?

              You keep the assets because you need them. This team is getting close to being one major move away, but they will need assets to make that major move whenever it comes available.
              I'm saying that Indiana pounce before it became widely known that he was available, and that the Bucks would most likely wouldn't match. While we're waiting on him to accept our offer sheet under the assumption/knowledge that the Bucks wouldn't match, his agent could have been...

              "Before you accept, let's shake the tree a little bit to see if we can get a better offer or situation for you, since you're really UFA.".

              Time would have been the enemy.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post

                I'm saying that Indiana pounce before it became widely known that he was available, and that the Bucks would most likely wouldn't match. While we're waiting on him to accept our offer sheet under the assumption/knowledge that the Bucks wouldn't match, his agent could have been...

                "Before you accept, let's shake the tree a little bit to see if we can get a better offer or situation for you, since you're really UFA.".

                Time would have been the enemy.
                There was nothing stopping his agent from telling him this. They were not under any type of time constraint.

                And the risk reward of giving up a late teens pick, at best, to not getting Brogdon and then going through the bargain bin. seriously look who is left out there and it is only July 3, imagine what it will be like on July 8. Really the risk was too great and the reward was just a TJ Leaf type player.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kent beckley View Post

                  There was nothing stopping his agent from telling him this. They were not under any type of time constraint.

                  And the risk reward of giving up a late teens pick, at best, to not getting Brogdon and then going through the bargain bin. seriously look who is left out there and it is only July 3, imagine what it will be like on July 8. Really the risk was too great and the reward was just a TJ Leaf type player.
                  This is the thing right here.

                  People here have said over and over that the huge problem with the Pacers FO is that they don't go hard for what they want, they bid cheap and let the good deals get away. So they do something that made sure the deal didn't get away and people are complaining that they didn't take the risk and go cheap.

                  Seriously, I want people here to come right out and say that if we'd offered against the RFA and either the Bucks matched or another team made a better offer that they would NOT have been furious with KP or else pointed to it as proof the Pacers don't want a championship.

                  You can believe you have insider information all you want, but the fact is that the FO did exactly what folks wanted them to do - went hard after a top player and sealed the deal before it could get away.
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BillS View Post

                    This is the thing right here.

                    People here have said over and over that the huge problem with the Pacers FO is that they don't go hard for what they want, they bid cheap and let the good deals get away. So they do something that made sure the deal didn't get away and people are complaining that they didn't take the risk and go cheap.

                    Seriously, I want people here to come right out and say that if we'd offered against the RFA and either the Bucks matched or another team made a better offer that they would NOT have been furious with KP or else pointed to it as proof the Pacers don't want a championship.

                    You can believe you have insider information all you want, but the fact is that the FO did exactly what folks wanted them to do - went hard after a top player and sealed the deal before it could get away.
                    To be it seems like another team had an offer on the table. Probably Philly. Maybe the Bucks match and trade him at the deadline to Philly for our same offer or slightly better. Not worth the risk if losing him. A very good player, in his prime, wanted to sign in Indiana. Pay the price to guarantee it, no question.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BillS View Post

                      This is the thing right here.

                      People here have said over and over that the huge problem with the Pacers FO is that they don't go hard for what they want, they bid cheap and let the good deals get away. So they do something that made sure the deal didn't get away and people are complaining that they didn't take the risk and go cheap.

                      Seriously, I want people here to come right out and say that if we'd offered against the RFA and either the Bucks matched or another team made a better offer that they would NOT have been furious with KP or else pointed to it as proof the Pacers don't want a championship.

                      You can believe you have insider information all you want, but the fact is that the FO did exactly what folks wanted them to do - went hard after a top player and sealed the deal before it could get away.
                      And I think this how I originally read the thread. It felt like people were "complaining" about giving up the draft picks to get Bogdan despite being a good player with a high ceiling. Maybe I oversimplify the trade, but to me it was 3 non-relevant picks for a solid prospect on a cap friendly contract for the next 4 years while weakening a divisional rival. Worse scenario would be if he pulls a Michael Carter-Williams performance on us.


                      Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                        I think this thread and the others about Brogdon prove you wrong about the board always going for the worst. From what I've seen, 90% of the people are happy about going after Brogdon.

                        The fact that there's debate about whether there should have been a trade or not is healthy, national people are wondering the same thing too. I don't think it's going for the worst at all to say I really like Brogdon, but I think it was a mistake to make the trade, they should have taken the risk instead. And that's backed up by the reported reason for the Pacers making the trade was not because of a fear of Milwaukee matching.
                        There is still an assumption in there that we made the trade solely because of Simon's policy. We really don't know what Milwaukee was thinking. They may have quickly rescinded Malcolm's offer, or there may have been other teams who would've eventually made an offer that Malcolm would've accepted over the Pacers. We really don't know, and it's possible that we tried to risk mitigate by quickly striking the deal.

                        I don't really like the trade, but I think I understand the need or it. However, it's contra to say the only way to build is through the draft, and then trade a first round draft pick a few days later.
                        Last edited by imawhat; 07-03-2019, 12:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                          There is still an assumption in there that we made the trade solely because of Simon's policy. We really don't know what Milwaukee was thinking. They may have quickly rescinded Malcolm's offer, or there may have been other teams who would've eventually made an offer that Malcolm would've accepted over the Pacers. We really don't know, and it's possible that we tried to risk mitigate by quickly striking the deal.

                          I don't really like the trade, but I think I understand the need or it. However, it's contra to say the only way to build is through the draft, and then trade a first round draft pick a few days later.
                          Knowing the Pacers' luck, that future draft pick will end up being a future MVP for the Bucks...


                          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                          Comment


                          • Everyone does understand this first round pick we traded has significant protections, right? As far as the second rounders go,with as many as we accumulated this year at the draft I'm fairly confident we are not losing much there. If anything, this is exactly the scenario for why we chose to stockpile all those second rounders.

                            Comment


                            • Since this is a KP thread I think it's time that we all here acknowledge all the moves that KP has made since taking over for Bird. I feel like over the past year or so (me included) just bashed him on this forum for everything.

                              KP took over a team where the face of the franchise wanted out. He traded Paul George for Oladipo and Sabonis. I will probably try to revisit this trade thread, but I'm sure we killed KP in the thread. At the time I thought we could get more for PG. I thought Vic was just an average player and I had seen Sabonis in college, but I didn't think he had much NBA potential. I remember telling my friend that we could have at least got the Thunders draft pick which was Terrence Ferguson. In my eyes we lost the trade, but I kept thinking that maybe if we got Ferguson a wing with potential the trade would have been closer. The rest is history both Sabonis and Vic exceed expectations.

                              He signs Bogey, and DC. They play well for usl
                              he flipped CJ miles for Cojo. win for us.

                              One thing I noticed about KP is that he is just not making a move to make a move. I thought we should have traded away one of our expirings at the deadline. I really wanted us to trade Bogey for Fultz. LOL I'm glad I'm not the GM because that trade would have got me fired. There are other GM's out there that are just making moves to make them. Look at what Brand has been doing. just bringing in player after player and overpaying Tobias. Look at what James Jones has done in Phoenix. gave away TJ warren to us just to only sign ricky Rubio and Frank Kaminsky.

                              We should be excited. We are long gone from the years of bird signing players like Monta, Stuckey, chase budinger. KP is bringing in guys in their prime! Guys that still have untapped potential.

                              IMO the only bad move he made was McDermott. The McDermott signing seems like something Bird would do which is sign someone that he feels is the best shooter because he feels that we need more shooting and not worry a bout his other limitations.

                              We can nitpick the draft if we want, but that is not fair.

                              It's safe to Say the PRITCHSLAP is back!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
                                Since this is a KP thread I think it's time that we all here acknowledge all the moves that KP has made since taking over for Bird. I feel like over the past year or so (me included) just bashed him on this forum for everything.

                                KP took over a team where the face of the franchise wanted out. He traded Paul George for Oladipo and Sabonis. I will probably try to revisit this trade thread, but I'm sure we killed KP in the thread. At the time I thought we could get more for PG. I thought Vic was just an average player and I had seen Sabonis in college, but I didn't think he had much NBA potential. I remember telling my friend that we could have at least got the Thunders draft pick which was Terrence Ferguson. In my eyes we lost the trade, but I kept thinking that maybe if we got Ferguson a wing with potential the trade would have been closer. The rest is history both Sabonis and Vic exceed expectations.

                                He signs Bogey, and DC. They play well for usl
                                he flipped CJ miles for Cojo. win for us.

                                One thing I noticed about KP is that he is just not making a move to make a move. I thought we should have traded away one of our expirings at the deadline. I really wanted us to trade Bogey for Fultz. LOL I'm glad I'm not the GM because that trade would have got me fired. There are other GM's out there that are just making moves to make them. Look at what Brand has been doing. just bringing in player after player and overpaying Tobias. Look at what James Jones has done in Phoenix. gave away TJ warren to us just to only sign ricky Rubio and Frank Kaminsky.

                                We should be excited. We are long gone from the years of bird signing players like Monta, Stuckey, chase budinger. KP is bringing in guys in their prime! Guys that still have untapped potential.

                                IMO the only bad move he made was McDermott. The McDermott signing seems like something Bird would do which is sign someone that he feels is the best shooter because he feels that we need more shooting and not worry a bout his other limitations.

                                We can nitpick the draft if we want, but that is not fair.

                                It's safe to Say the PRITCHSLAP is back!
                                Agree fully with the spirit of what you've written, but curious: why would you get fired for having traded Bogie, an expiring contract, for Markelle Fultz? Do we know that Fultz is definitely a bust?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X