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:
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

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

Fix It

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fix It

    What an absolute dumpster fire of a season. Certainly, we all can agree on that.

    With reports of Nate's potential demise growing and the product on the court (not to mention the appearance of the locker room) quickly devolving, let's partake in a good ol' PD thought experiment...

    Fix the Pacers. You have the ultimate authority to at least attempt to do so in this one. Three basic rules for this one:

    1. Does Nate stay or go? If he goes, who do you target to replace him?

    2. Does Kevin stay or go? If he goes, same question.

    3. Make three realistic roster changes. No more, no less. Don't say "15 new players" or trade for Giannis. Think of something potentially accomplishable that helps the team.

    We do an awful lot of b****ing on here. Time to hear some solutions.


  • #2
    Bop it!


    • #3
      1.) He gone. Brad Steven soon come.

      2.) He gone. No idea. Maybe you promote from within with Buchanan. Maybe Larry comes back. Maybe you swing for the fences with Ujiri but something tells me he's going to land with the Knicks.

      3.) Trade Sabonis or Turner: Trade goal, more athleticism or picks. Trade Brogdon or Levert: Same trade goals as the big man trade. Revamp the bench to get more athletic. Pray to God TJ warren actually solves some of the issues everyone thinks he will.


      • #4
        1. Bjork- gone! Replace him with Chauncey Billups. I'd like Steven or Stotts too though

        2. KP is gone - I've no idea who to replace him though.

        3. Same as Trader Joe. I'd target Fox or Miles Bridges in a trade though.
        Last edited by graphic-er; 05-06-2021, 12:27 PM.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


        • #5
          I'm reluctant to say this, but I'm as disconsolate about the team as I've been in many years. It's time to clean house. The three-year plan, now four years and counting, is a failure (for various reasons). So ... spend big on proven quality leadership; send Peck, UB and Bills pallets of patience pills; and go from there.

          In terms of identity, I do like some of the elements that N8 has mentioned and we've seen glimpses of: up-tempo, ball-sharing, "disruptive," etc. Start by trading/draft a couple strong, quick, long athletes. Players like Vnzla's Aaron Gordon. Croz's DeAndre Hunter. Methinks players like that would have a big impact on the team right away.
          Last edited by DrFife; 05-06-2021, 12:38 PM.

          "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

          - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.


          • #6
            1.) Nate goes. Hire Charles Lee.
            2.) I don't know enough by potential GMs to opine.
            3.) Roster Changes:
            a. Trade Brogdon for a 1st and salary makeup or salary cap relief.
            b. Trade one of Domas or Myles for 1st round (top 8) pick.

            This team is more talented than some bad teams we've had in the past. I don't think we need a complete overhaul of the roster, but we do of the coaching and front office.

            Last edited by Rogco; 05-07-2021, 02:59 PM.
            Danger Zone


            • #7
              1. Bjorkgren - I really want to give him a chance beyond this cluster**** of a season. But as a mentioned in another thread, this team has no vision at the moment. Once they establish what that vision is, they need to decide if Nate is the right coach for that. IF he does fit that vision, his cast of assistant coaches needs to be completely overhauled.

              Something that I think a lot of people are forgetting is that Nate promised to bring a specific wrinkle to his coaching staff from his time in Toronto. Specific duties would be divided up amongst the assistants and rotated over the course of the season so that everyone “gained valuable experience” and would be able to offer “unique insight.” I have a feeling that this free-flowing job description is not something Nate’s staff have appreciated/understood and this is probably where the “over-communication” is coming from.

              2. Pritchard - KP needs to leave. At this point, I think he’s even started to lay the groundwork for it whether he is doing so knowingly or not.

              Just think about how he’s repeatedly said in interviews lately that this is the most difficult and taxing season that he has ever experienced. It’s also the first season following his old friend McMillan’s departure. Why does that matter? Because McMillan said himself that if he couldn’t get the team out of the first round last year, the team needed a change. If the team can’t make it out of the first round this year, let alone make the playoffs at all, then Pritchard has to realize that he is the next person in line to receive the blame for a string of years ending in disappointment.

              Who replaces him? I don’t know. Definitely someone who has proven capable of constructing a competent team and making difficult decisions regarding personnel. It doesn’t need to be an Indiana guy. You get the best person available.

              3. I think Brogdon and Sabonis need to be traded. Possibly even Myles. I’d even be fine with trading Goga. I really don’t care at this point. We desperately need athleticism and we desperately need talent. With that in mind, I think you trade the players with the highest trade value right now.

              But again, bring in new management. Establish a vision. Then execute that vision by acquiring players and staff that fit it and believe in it.

              EDIT: Fire Bjorkgren of any of this is remotely true.
              Last edited by indyman37; 05-06-2021, 01:28 PM.
              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.


              • #8
                1) Hell yes. Typically I would want to go for a young gun but seeing how this played out, I'm totally down with going for a proven hand just to right the ship for now. Let's go for D'Antoni...unless Brad Stevens becomes available in which case we move heaven and earth to get him. I guess my pecking order would be Stevens, D'Antoni, Stotts, Joerger. I just don't think Celtics will part with Stevens though.

                2) I would keep him. This is probably the nadir of his tenure but I think overall he's done very well for the most part, despite the absolute car crash that has been Nate. So I let him know he's on thin ice, but he stays.

                3) Three changes:

                - Trade Myles before next season and Warren during the season. I'm not a Myles Hater by any stretch, I just think it's time to choose and obviously we should go with Sabonis. And nothing against Warren, but he's always had injury issues and I feel he's a ticking timebomb, he's due a hefty payday and we shouldn't be the ones to pick up the tab. Hopefully he'll come back and show some value at the beginning of next season which would help our return, but if we part with him this offseason, so be it. Though honestly that might be a bad look and his status hurts our leverage, so the former path might be preferable.

                - Draft a PG and play him rain, sleet, or snow. I don't care how raw he is, just ****ing play him. I prefer Giddey but certainly wouldn't mind Mitchell if he's still available when we pick. I'm going to cheat here and count this with this point since it's not a "change" to our roster, but bring back TJM to mentor and act as a stopgap in case the dude's not ready to go half an hour a night, and move Brogdon full-time to SG. I want to play fast and we just can't do that if Brogdon is the primary ballhandler.

                - Find an athletic 4, either via trading Myles/Warren or through free agency. Now I hear John Collins wants a max this summer which is a big "**** no", but once he realizes he won't get it, maybe we look at him. In terms of a trade I'm down with packaging some firsts and the aforementioned players (and perhaps then some) to try and get Siakam, which would be the dream, but I think he survives Toronto's impending blow-up as they're too smart to let him go. Some think the Raptors will try to offload him because he was paid "too much", but I think like me they know what he's worth and don't share that point of view. If he's not a Raptor next season though, he better be a Pacer. If we can't land a big fish I think a good bargain bin pickup might be Bobby Portis, though he's probably a bit more of a middling athlete by NBA standards than ideal. Then again, I think the "we're too unathletic" angle is a tad overplayed, but that's a topic for another time.
                Last edited by SaintLouisan; 05-06-2021, 11:29 PM.


                • #9
                  1. If there is truth to the BR piece and Bjorkgren is that difficult of a personality/communicator/leader to deal with then you send him packing. Although if that stuff is accurate on top of the Goga/Foster thing on top of the disappointment of the season, I'd have already cut ties. If the B/R thing is completely false or highly exaggerated, and we finish with a strong flurry, I'd consider giving him 1 more year. Forced hand right now, I'm moving on from Nate.

                  2. Keeping KP unless there's an obvious home run out there. If there is a make the playoffs at all costs directive that's keeping us mediocre, it comes from above him and what's he going to do if it's the case. Drafting hasn't been too good, which needs rectified. But I have to respect most of his player acquisitions via other routes. Although there's a reasonable amount of dislike of Brogdon on here these days, there sure were a lot of excited posters around here who thought it was a big-time get when it went down. I'm one who's soured on Brogdon considerably over time myself.

                  3. I don't know exactly what realistic targets are, but I am trading Brogdon and at least one of Myles, Goga, Domas, in that order of priority pending specifics of what they'd bring back. So if Domas nets you the best difference maker/upgrade, you do it. I don't expect that's how it plays out, but you have to be open to any possibility. Younger guys/back-ups all open to be moved to fill out deals as needed.

                  If money is no object, guys I'd definitely want too see back are TJM, McD, LeVert, and Brissett. Anxious to see TJW back on the floor, but I'd somewhat take the approach described by Saint Louisan, except not with the intent of trading him, but rather with the realistic option to do so if he plays well but obviously is not "fitting" well. I'm not to the point of drawing that conclusion yet. In fact, I think he still has promise for us. Worst case scenario we just let him walk when his deal is up.

                  Agree with the sentiment that we need to get more athletic. We need some better wing defenders who aren't turnstyles and probably a new 4. I'd like to get a better fit option at starting PG. If Brogdon is back and no new roster alternatives, I'd rather see AHo or TJM in the starting lineup with Brogdon and LeVert manning the 2/3. In fact, regardless of Brogdon's health/return this season, I'm hoping AHo remains a starter the rest of the way.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata


                  • #10
                    Coaching and Front office aside, the player fix for this team is pretty easy to figure out.

                    Move Brogdon to the 2, and get a defensive anchor who has some quickness and length at the 1 position. Honestly Brogdon is worse than DC when it comes to defense at the point of attack.

                    Next year run
                    ???PG / TJM / AHoliday
                    Brogdon / Sumner / Stanley
                    LeVert / JHoliday / Martin
                    Warren / Brissett /
                    Sabonis / Goga

                    The real trade opportunity is can you turn Turner + Warren in to an the ideal PF to run with Sabonis.
                    If that were the case. I could also see a Scenario where we move Sumner to starting PG for defensive purposes.

                    Sumner / TJM / AHoliday
                    Brogdon / Martin / Stanley
                    LeVert / JHoliday /
                    ???? / Brissett /
                    Sabonis / Goga

                    I am assuming that McDermott will be gone in FA.

                    Another trade I would look hard at is Turner+Brogdon+1st for DeAaron Fox.
                    Last edited by graphic-er; 05-12-2021, 09:47 AM.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.


                    • #11
                      I WILL say this. The upside here is that we actually have more, let's say, assets than a lottery team normally has, and are about to add to that a lottery pick that could net us a very good young player. Consider:

                      1) Turner is worth more to other teams than he is to us. As I've alluded to, he has value to a team that's sniffing contention and needs a specific type of center who's asked merely to be a rim protector.

                      2) Brogdon is worth more to other teams than he is to us, in light of being a pure scorer who can be valuable when not takes to run the offense or whose D can be hidden in a stronger system.

                      3) McD definitely has value to contending teams but that value needs to be recouped. I think we've missed his sell by date, and we're gonna have to be willing to resign either him or TJ and cash in next season. As it is, unless they're resigned by us neither fetches any trade value.

                      4) Same goes for Warren. We talk alot about teams overpaying. I really like Warren, but if he comes back from injury next season and looks good, you'll get a haul for him in a trade scenario.

                      5) Sabo has major value to a team needing it's second or third tier guy to pair alongside their single star player (Minny anyone??), in the right scenario if that team is going for it and it's through rebuilding you may be able to pry away their draft pick. If I'm Minn I certainly do this trade, KAT, Sabo, Edwards, Malik Beasley and Russell would HAVE to be considered a powerhouse in the making & KAT fits in with Sabonis very well. Plus they need to stop rebuilding right now & show some chops or else theyre gonna have to worry about KAT's future.

                      We have to assess that we're not contending next year. Get your draft pick, cash out on guys that have value to certain teams, and the returns on these assets will have us already far above the situation of most bottom-12 level teams. It's not hard to see a situation where we can be a strong playoff team again the year after next.

                      In this, I'm willing to keep KP as he does, at least, have a strong track record of bringing home the bacon in trade deals. But they need to address their draft room quality, stat.
                      Last edited by OneMoreYear; 05-12-2021, 10:40 AM.


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                        Coaching and Front office aside, the player fix for this team is pretty easy to figure out.

                        Move Brogdon to the 2, and get a defensive anchor who has some quickness and length at the 1 position. Honestly Brogdon is worse than DC when it comes to defense at the point of attack.

                        Next year run
                        ???PG / TJM / AHoliday
                        Brogdon / Sumner / Stanley
                        LeVert / JHoliday / Martin
                        Warren / Brissett /
                        Sabonis / Goga

                        The real trade opportunity is can you turn Turner + Warren in to an the ideal PF to run with Sabonis.
                        If that were the case. I could also see a Scenario where we move Sumner to starting PG for defensive purposes.

                        Sumner / TJM / AHoliday
                        Brogdon / Martin / Stanley
                        LeVert / JHoliday /
                        ???? / Brissett /
                        Sabonis / Goga

                        I am assuming that McDermott will be gone in FA.

                        Another trade I would look hard at is Turner+Brogdon+1st for DeAaron Fox.
                        Whoah! I'm not even sure I would trade Brogdon for Fox straight up, much less include Turner and a 1st!!! Fox is a one trick pony on a bad team, who can't shoot to save his life, and no better of a defender than Brogdon. And is now also grossly overpaid.

                        Sigh... Never underestimate people's penchant to over value other teams players in comparison to our own.
                        Last edited by OneMoreYear; 05-12-2021, 11:33 AM.


                        • #13

                          Bleacher Report just released a mock draft yesterday and they have the Pacers picking Jalen Suggs at #4. I know it doesn't mean much, but interesting that they have them that high. Getting Jalen Suggs would be sick!


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post

                            Whoah! I'm not even sure I would trade Brogdon for Fox straight up, much less include Turner and a 1st!!! Fox is a one trick pony on a bad team, who can't shoot to save his life, and no better of a defender than Brogdon. And is now also grossly overpaid.

                            Sigh... Never underestimate people's penchant to over value other teams players in comparison to our own.
                            You wouldn’t trade Brogdon for a guy that plays better D while averaging 25 points and 7 assist that’s shooting 48% from the field?


                            • #15
                              1. Keep Bjork or sign D'Antoni

                              2. I'm fine if KP stays or goes. If he goes, I don't know enough about GMs to make that call. I just know I don't want Ainge.

                              3.Trade Brogdon to the Peilcans for Bledsoe's bad contract, NAW or Jaxon Hayes, and 2 1sts

                              Then trade Myles, and 2 2nd rounders to the Hornets for a re-signed Bridges (4/64) and filler.

                              Draft Davion Mitchell with the Pels pick and an athletic 4 with our pick

                              re-sign Doug (4/44)


                              Sumner (NAW?)
                              rookie athletic 4
                              Goga (Hayes?)

                              Dead weight - Bledsoe and Lamb (maybe try to move Lamb to free up cash for McC)

                              Then we still have the future Pels pick and Bledsoe's expiring deal to target a long term 4 next to Domas over the next couple years

                              This is me playing the long game. Bledsoe is just about worthless so it'd be rough to take on that contract for a couple years but if we can land Davion Mitchell it's worth it IMO.