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

GET BEN SIMMONS PRITCHARD !!!!

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

  • Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post

    How odd! In what way exactly does Simmons being here, after the roster is gutted & those picks are included, help us get past being mediocre?

    Buying into Simmons doesn't get us off the treadmill not in any reality. I mean, how can you "bottom out" and get fully out of the mediocre trap if you've just sold off your firsts for 2 yrs and have a huge chunk of salary wrapped up for 4? You can't. It'll be Ben, a couple fringe starters, no playoff wins, and a capped out, pick-less team for the next few years.

    If you're argument is that we need to stop being mediocre & tilt one way or the other, getting Simmons does NOT do either.

    At best, he's a top 25 player on a then-terrible roster with no assets or picks to use to improve.

    At worst, you're now a bottom-8 team and you DON'T get any benefit from sucking harder bc you sold your picks.

    I'm really curious how you see Simmons coming aboard at the expense of our top-3 players & 2 picks helping us "get off the treadmill" lol. It doesn't.

    We're better off now bc at least we have picks & assets (even if Pritch won't use them). Only difference if we get Ben is we'll still be also rans w/ a snowballs chance in hell of beating the east top 4, but now with no flexibility to improve or rebuild.
    You keep arguing like there is one iota of difference between being a first round and out team without Ben Simmons and a first round and out team with him.

    I think you are confusing me with believing Ben Simmons is the answer to all of our problems. I don't know if he is or is not. No matter how bad he looked in the last playoffs he is already a multi time all-star who has been on the all NBA 3rd team, two time first team all defense and was the R.O.Y. So let's not act like we are talking about Timoth' Luwawu-Cabarrot. As you yourself already said he would be better than any Pacer right now, which is the entire point of my argument.

    To be clear the point of my argument is WE NEED BETTER PLAYERS. We have an entire team of B level players with Sabonis being a B+ level player and every other starter some level of B.

    Simmons might also be a B level player, we don't know how he would be here. However in his career he has been an A- level player. But if he fails here, I ask again what is the difference?

    Let's pretend that things go as great as they can for the Pacers this year. I mean Warren comes back in the first half of the season and is the player Prtichard thinks he is (which could never be true because listening to him talk about him last season I am sure he thought he had Kevin Durrant on the team). Either way the ceiling for this team (barring catastrophic injury to the top teams) is maybe 6th seed. I'll even stretch my imagination and believe that they might be the 5th seed. So we then enter the first round, win a couple of home games and we are done for the year. Come back next season and do it all over again like we have the past seven seasons (by then eight).

    I'm just tired of that scenario to be blunt with you. I would rather take a risk believing that we are trying to win something and not just be a tough out.

    Simmons is a risk, I'll say that again and again and again. I know that, he may, hell he probably would blow up in our faces. But to me losing in the first round (again) is not really any better than not making the playoffs at all and this is where I differ with the majority of the digest, I know that.

    As to losing draft picks. I'll agree with you there. At best I would give them next years unprotected first rounder. However after that I would only agree to a top 10 protected one and remember NBA rules do not allow teams to trade away consecutive first round picks (there are ways around that though).

    Either way I don't know why I'm bothering with this because we all know the Pacers are going to roll back the same squad again and say that they haven't seen them healthy and when Warren misses most of the games this year and we have some other injury we will say the same thing again next year.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Peck View Post

      You keep arguing like there is one iota of difference between being a first round and out team without Ben Simmons and a first round and out team with him.

      I think you are confusing me with believing Ben Simmons is the answer to all of our problems. I don't know if he is or is not. No matter how bad he looked in the last playoffs he is already a multi time all-star who has been on the all NBA 3rd team, two time first team all defense and was the R.O.Y. So let's not act like we are talking about Timoth' Luwawu-Cabarrot. As you yourself already said he would be better than any Pacer right now, which is the entire point of my argument.

      To be clear the point of my argument is WE NEED BETTER PLAYERS. We have an entire team of B level players with Sabonis being a B+ level player and every other starter some level of B.

      Simmons might also be a B level player, we don't know how he would be here. However in his career he has been an A- level player. But if he fails here, I ask again what is the difference?

      Let's pretend that things go as great as they can for the Pacers this year. I mean Warren comes back in the first half of the season and is the player Prtichard thinks he is (which could never be true because listening to him talk about him last season I am sure he thought he had Kevin Durrant on the team). Either way the ceiling for this team (barring catastrophic injury to the top teams) is maybe 6th seed. I'll even stretch my imagination and believe that they might be the 5th seed. So we then enter the first round, win a couple of home games and we are done for the year. Come back next season and do it all over again like we have the past seven seasons (by then eight).

      I'm just tired of that scenario to be blunt with you. I would rather take a risk believing that we are trying to win something and not just be a tough out.

      Simmons is a risk, I'll say that again and again and again. I know that, he may, hell he probably would blow up in our faces. But to me losing in the first round (again) is not really any better than not making the playoffs at all and this is where I differ with the majority of the digest, I know that.

      As to losing draft picks. I'll agree with you there. At best I would give them next years unprotected first rounder. However after that I would only agree to a top 10 protected one and remember NBA rules do not allow teams to trade away consecutive first round picks (there are ways around that though).

      Either way I don't know why I'm bothering with this because we all know the Pacers are going to roll back the same squad again and say that they haven't seen them healthy and when Warren misses most of the games this year and we have some other injury we will say the same thing again next year.
      I am with you on the needing better players thing. Warren should not be re-signed regardless so trading him for something is best. Simmons is a great defender. Adding him minus say Warren and Brogdon
      and some picks is fine by me. The Pacers are never going to be an offensive juggernaut but they could a defensive juggernaut with just enough offense to get further down the line. Both rookies are good defenders and Jackson is a player the Pacers have not had in a Looooonngg time. Myles despite the whining around here is a very good defensive player. Domas can be the bulldog underneath.
      I would take the chance. If it blows up well the Pacers are really not any worse off than they are now.
      And Pacer fans love defense.
      {o,o}
      |)__)
      -"-"-

      Comment


      • Lol at people worried about “assets”


        Give Philly all the picks for the next ten years who cares?
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • From Pacers.com.........


          Center Myles Turner was the biggest mover among Pacers players in this year's ESPN list. ESPN ranked Turner 44th heading into this season, up 30 spots from a year ago. Turner averaged 12.6 points and 6.5 rebounds last season while blocking a career-high 3.4 shots per game, leading the league in blocks per game for the second time in his career.

          Unsurprisingly, two-time All-Star Domantas Sabonis was the highest-ranked Pacer, coming in at 40th, up 10 spots over last season. The 6-11 big man averaged 20.3 points, 12 rebounds, and 6.7 assists last season, tallying 28 double-doubles and nine triple-doubles.
          =++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


          Those number sound kinda good but if your top rated player is #40 and there are 30 teams, well you do the math. As Peck has pointed out, the Pacers have a lot of B level players and not one A level player
          Is Simmons an A level player? I believe so.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • Originally posted by owl View Post
            From Pacers.com......... Center Myles Turner was the biggest mover among Pacers players in this year's ESPN list.
            So many of us here--myself included at times--are guilty of being so self-assured that what we've seen in the recent past is absolutely, positively what we are going to see in the near-future. At the Digest party, I threw out a question about how everyone would react if Myles averages 9 rebounds a game this year. Reactions ranged from "Oh. Um, gee, that'd be ... tremendous!" to one of singers gathering for a rendition of the Dumbo song, "When I see an elephant fly."

            I'm not predicting that Myles indeed will average 9 rebounds a game, but of all the details I'd absolutely love to see in the team for the upcoming season, that's in the top 5.


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

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DrFife View Post

              So many of us here--myself included at times--are guilty of being so self-assured that what we've seen in the recent past is absolutely, positively what we are going to see in the near-future. At the Digest party, I threw out a question about how everyone would react if Myles averages 9 rebounds a game this year. Reactions ranged from "Oh. Um, gee, that'd be ... tremendous!" to one of singers gathering for a rendition of the Dumbo song, "When I see an elephant fly."

              I'm not predicting that Myles indeed will average 9 rebounds a game, but of all the details I'd absolutely love to see in the team for the upcoming season, that's in the top 5.
              That would be great. I would also like the see Myles knock someone on their xxx and get a flagrant foul.
              {o,o}
              |)__)
              -"-"-

              Comment


              • The Pacers first pre-season game is October 5th??? That is 10 days away
                {o,o}
                |)__)
                -"-"-

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  Lol at people worried about “assets”


                  Give Philly all the picks for the next ten years who cares?
                  For Embiid maybe. A soft loser like Simmons ain't worth taking on picks.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post

                    For Embiid maybe. A soft loser like Simmons ain't worth taking on picks.
                    I really don't care if Pacers got a pick for the next ten years or not just as I don't care if they ever have cap space.


                    The days of buying the "assets" and "cap space" bs are over for me as I know this team won't do s*** with either.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peck View Post

                      You keep arguing like there is one iota of difference between being a first round and out team without Ben Simmons and a first round and out team with him.
                      .
                      There is a HUGE difference. I believe I explained why.

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post

                      Simmons might also be a B level player, we don't know how he would be here. However in his career he has been an A- level player. But if he fails here, I ask again what is the difference?
                      I explained at length what the difference is. Yet here it is again for you.

                      - Neither scenario gets us into contention.

                      - One scenario (Simmons trade in terms being debated) leaves us bereft of our 3 best (current) players, and 2 draft picks, all of which are useful tools to make changes.

                      One scenario does not.

                      If the team isn't going to win anything in either instance, IOW, both routes are failures, then why, oh why, wouldnt you just choose to keep the 3 tradeable players + 2 picks which you can at least use??

                      I mean an I speaking Greek? Why give up anything of real value if in the end t's not going to accomplish anything?

                      This goes back to my standard argument and baseline philosophy:

                      1) Every midlevel or above starter has value in a given year. Usually to aspirational playoff teams, but ideally, to young rudderless teams like NOLA, Minny, SAC and Chicago who can and will bleed talent as their youth movement stalls and they seek to shed youth for veteran talent. There is always a market for a Brogdon, Sabonis or Turner.

                      2) By keeping these guys and playing them for a particular season, you are effectively "spending" the value they could've potentially brought you (picks, young prospects). You are spending a year of their usefulness (ie contractual stability at a value rate). TJW, had he been healthy last year, is an example of guys who have an enormous value to other teams considering their production, low cost, and growth. He won't have that value again. If we'd recognized that properly and moved him before last season began/injury hit, we could've moved him for real worth before his stock topped out.

                      3) My take is this. If that expenditure isn't going to bring you either a shot at contending or development that'll get your reasonable close to contention, then you've wasted that value as all it's bought you is some regular season wins no one will remember.

                      4) A modern forward thinking GM recognizes this, and that the NBA plays a lot like a financial market where you're quick to flip an asset when you think you can acquire one with greater growth potential. Who if not competing, renders every asset possible into assets that have a maximum upside (picks, youth). IE if your not winning, move things to maximize your long term ceiling. Any year you go into w/o a path to contention, utilizing players that have mostly peaked or whose value is diminishing, is imo GM malpractice and should not be tolerated. Our GMs greatest failure is thinking we have the means to improve or augment this core to get a shot, we don't, and that self-deception is preventing us from having moved guys off for guys w more upside & draft prospects.

                      Sabonis' greatest moment of value he will ever have was probably last season, and Myles two years ago. (Both will probably get better, yes, but as they do their long term potential becomes more clearly defined while younger guys maintain the attractiveness of unknown potential, and at some point a known quantity becomes less valuable than a promising upside). They're both good but their year to year improvement trajectory is flattening and it's safe to say they'll top out as fringe all-star B-level guys. Excitement to "buy into" then will dwindle from this point on, in light of sexier, untapped young potential particularly when we've seen young guys like Ayton, Ball and Ingram can be viewed as "decent" players and then suddenly show a surprising upwards trajectory. Next to our guys who probably don't have that quantum leap of growth left in them, there's attractiveness in those sorts of players, ergo, they need to be moved now.

                      Brogdon's moment of greatest usefulness is right now.

                      Lamb had that when we acquired him as he was most valuable as useful support piece on a contender's bench someplace, but we've squandered that. By staying pat and playing them another year we are eating valuable assets in exchange for buying about 40 regular season wins.

                      Ballard: he gets this. He recognizes that an established player with low growth products is only useful when you're right THERE ready to grab the championship. It's a solid "buy" with essentially known value and role. Otherwise, the specter of chance/potential when you're drafting youth is far more useful than vets spending their prime years on a long term project roster. Assuming the ship gets righted and Colts get back on track, I'd wager you'll see less emphasis on picks & more veteran pickups like Buckner the closer we get to legit contention.

                      You know, basically, like KP's strategy except the total opposite.
                      Last edited by OneMoreYear; 09-25-2021, 02:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • This NBA Team Continues To Be A Sleeper In The Philadelphia 76ers' Ben Simmons Trade Possibilities

                        https://www.si.com/nba/pacers/news/o...-possibilities

                        Comment


                        • The thing the Pacers need to change is a vision that does not account for the modern NBA. The line of thought is that teams need to grow together. Take a next step every season. First round, second round, ECF. You don't have that option anymore because of shorter contracts. The only way you can do that if you have A-level talent and switching starter level talent or key bench pieces that are players 4 through 8 that fit needs. We keep locking in these players that are (at best) player 3 through 11, praying that this consistency thing will compensate for talent deficiency. By acquiring Simmons we could find player 2. Or he could he prove to be another B-level talent that makes sure we can't sign two B-level players, because he gets paid like an A-level player.
                          Trying to enjoy every Pacers game as if it is the last!

                          Comment


                          • Look, if the Pacers give up everyone, no picks. Absolutely no first rounders. If we give up only one or two starters, put picks in. Doesn't matter to me. Ben Simmons seems less likable by the minute, and I already hadn't been a fan the last few years. However, dude can play most of the game pretty well, and just needs to grow mentally. He probably would. Him being at least neck and neck with the best player on whatever team would force him to assume a bit more responsibility, and I'd bet on it helping him be a little more aggressive. He has real ability, too much to fall off from being at least a near All-Star.

                            He's young, maybe a little dumb, at least a little soft mentally, and his work ethic might be questionable compared to his peers, or the peers he should be looking at. However, he could very well be the most dominant defender in the NBA this upcoming season, and for many years in the future. That's pretty close to his floor. While I don't fully believe in him having a much higher ceiling, theoritically, he should be able to grow a lot more.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pacersgroningen View Post
                              The thing the Pacers need to change is a vision that does not account for the modern NBA. The line of thought is that teams need to grow together. Take a next step every season. First round, second round, ECF. You don't have that option anymore because of shorter contracts. The only way you can do that if you have A-level talent and switching starter level talent or key bench pieces that are players 4 through 8 that fit needs. We keep locking in these players that are (at best) player 3 through 11, praying that this consistency thing will compensate for talent deficiency. By acquiring Simmons we could find player 2. Or he could he prove to be another B-level talent that makes sure we can't sign two B-level players, because he gets paid like an A-level player.
                              I agree with this. Not even player contracts, but players being able to dictate where they play. I think small markets should be looking to be much more splashy. They need to operate at a higher level of risk to bring in higher talent level. No star is going to target Indiana. If you give the FO a long leash and tell them to go make some moves, it could pay off. I also happen to think that small markets shouldn't trade away all of their picks, unless they're on the cusp of contention, or they are getting a proven star back. Everything that isn't a pick should be available, as long as you aren't sending guys left and right. I get that an undesirable location at least needs to be viewed by players and agents as a team that operates "the right way." That doesn't mean the team should just stick everything in a savings account and let it grow at a much slower rate while hoping that the more high profile investments other teams make go bust.

                              Comment


                              • https://www.basketballnews.com/stori...e-bus-by-76ers
                                Matisse Thybulle feels Ben Simmons was 'thrown under the bus' by 76ers

                                Here’s a transcript of their candid back-and-forth:

                                JJ Redick: "Do you think that the Sixers – and I'm not going to single anyone out – but do you think the Sixers could have handled the end of last postseason a little better? It seemed, from the outside, that Ben was kind of thrown under the bus."

                                Matisse Thybulle: "Yeah... There's a lot to be said. To the last point you just made, he was thrown under the bus. You asked me [earlier] if I've been booed or had people mad at me: I made the foul that lost us the last game and I received almost no [backlash]. There was a little bit on Twitter, but the Ben hate was so much louder."

                                JJ Redick: "It had been growing though."

                                Matisse Thybulle: "But just to build the frame of reference: I lost us the game, which lost us the series, and nobody really spoke about it. They wanted to talk about [Ben] passing up the dunk and passing it to me more than my foul. Anyways, I think both sides played a decent role in it. Neither side has really helped themselves throughout this situation. Whoever started it [or] whoever made it worse... at this point, it doesn't really matter. [Both] sides have played a pretty decent role in the situation that we find ourselves in now. On a human level, as his teammate and as a friend, you hate to see people put in this situation that's so heavily covered by the media. Because people lose sight of the human aspect of us athletes, especially during controversial times; we're looked at as a commodity. I don't even know exactly what people consider us in these moments, but it's not as humans. On a personal level, I really do feel for him because this would suck for anybody."

                                JJ Redick: "I typically don't agree with the 'both sides' claim, but I would say... I'm friends with Ben and had him as a teammate and loved him as a teammate, but he probably could do more to help himself – especially [when it comes to] ingratiating himself with certain people. But I also think it's one of those things that comes with playing here [in Philadelphia] and comes with being a max player. I guess my problem with the entire situation – and this is where I'm going to defend Ben a little bit and I've said this on the podcast before – [is this]: I feel like at times, people just can't appreciate Ben for who he is as a player. Like, we can't appreciate Ben's greatness for Ben's greatness. And that's not to say he's blameless in any of this, but we haven't gotten to the point where [we say], 'Ben is a great player and here is what he's great at; let's just appreciate that.' We want to nitpick the things that he doesn't do (and that we all want him to do), and I don't think that's fair to Ben. Again, Ben is not blameless, but I don't think that's been fair to Ben."

                                Matisse Thybulle: "That's a very Philly thing though. That's a very Philly thing... To have someone who's so dominant and just have him still lack a few skills that not every NBA player even has, and [for those weaknesses] to be highlighted more than his true strengths, it really doesn't make sense. But that's the sports world for you."

                                Tommy Alter: “Some of the stuff Ben does defensively is on a different level than anybody else in the league. I’m curious, how much have you learned from him [on that end]?”

                                Matisse Thybulle: "He's one of the examples of [dominating with] his physical ability. His ability to just flip a switch and lock down an entire court is like nothing that I've ever seen. 'Cause he's 6-foot-10 and runs like a gazelle! I've watched him pin Luka [Doncic] to the halfcourt line, and that's not [easy] - Luka is a big dude and he's a very skilled guard, that's unheard of! He's done things that you could never teach to anyone. They are things that you can't even develop over the course of your career. He has the ability to do things that a lot of players will never be able to do."

                                It remains to be seen what will happen next in the Simmons saga, but we should get some more information when Philadelphia’s training camp tips off on Tuesday, Sept. 28.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X