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

Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

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

  • #31
    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

    have i ever said danny was bad anthem? he just is not a franchise player for this team and prevents us from acquiring one if we keep him. even when the pacers drafted danny, he was merely supposed to be the player to take us over the top. the #3 option behind ron and jo. danny is worth trading for if you feel you already have that franchise player. danny is a #2 on a solid team, a #3 on a great team...but anthem, do you have an answer to this statement: "just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5..."?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

      have i ever said danny was bad anthem?
      "Bad" isn't the point. If he's not going to be a top-tier player, then why would somebody else give us one in return for him?

      Originally posted by croz24 View Post
      but anthem, do you have an answer to this statement: "just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5..."?
      Kobe? Billups? Ginobli?

      Regardless, plenty of those "best players" played for other teams than the one that drafted them. This isn't our only shot at a "best player" and frankly outside of Rose and Beasley I don't have a lot of confidence that anybody in this draft is going to become that guy.

      Do you really think OJ Mayo is going to have a better career than Danny? Bayless?
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

        high schoolers are somewhat the exception to the top 5 rule (kobe and moses malone). however, had both played just one year in college, it is VERY likely they would have gone top 5. regardless, shaq was lal's best player. billups was #3 overall. and you aren't telling me ginobili is better than duncan are you? but do you really think a top tier FA will come to the pacers? the only players you can name who changed teams like you suggest during the time frame i gave are shaq, possibly kareem, and billups/rasheed. indiana cannot compete with los angeles or miami as far as city appeal. thus, we rest our hopes on the draft...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          But if Danny's so bad, why would teams give up a top-5 pick for him?
          EDIT: Top 4, really, since both of those guys might be gone by 5.
          If Danny is so good, why won't they? The truth is they wouldn't. But combined with the 11th pick and even another player or some cap relief they might.
          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            "Bad" isn't the point. If he's not going to be a top-tier player, then why would somebody else give us one in return for him?


            Kobe? Billups? Ginobli?

            Regardless, plenty of those "best players" played for other teams than the one that drafted them. This isn't our only shot at a "best player" and frankly outside of Rose and Beasley I don't have a lot of confidence that anybody in this draft is going to become that guy.

            Do you really think OJ Mayo is going to have a better career than Danny? Bayless?
            Yes, I think Mayo will definately have a better career than Granger. I live on the WC and watched Mayo a lot, and he is better or as good as Danny in every aspect other than outside shooting and rebounding right now. But definately a much better ball handler, defender and creator before ever stepping on an NBA court, and despite a 6 years head start. Bayless is a tweener, so it's hard to say how he'll adjust. But he is far more talented than Danny as well. Danny is the type of guy who is pretty good at everything, but doesn't make the players around him better.

            Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2. If you think we are going to stumble into drafting a guy like Kobe Bryant, I strongly disagree. If you think we are going to land a guy like Billups who played for about 5 teams before Detroit and have him blossom into a top 5 PG, then I disagree again. Detroit was mad lucky to build thier team. Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace Prince and Billups all exceeded expectations. And if you think we are going to land one in free agency of have the pices to aquire one in a trade I disagree also. The draft is the only way.
            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

              I'm in agreement with croz and tater, that if we have the opportunity to trade Granger for someone that could make a bigger impact than Granger for us, that we should make a move. Granger's going to be a liability for us when we sign him to a big contract. Right now, sure, we can all love him because he's producing for us at his price. But when the time comes, we're going to be bemoaning him for being inconsistent at the money he gets.

              The way I see it, Granger's an excellent complementary player and we should only keep him if we had better pieces ABOVE him, not around him. He's just doesn't ooze the leadership qualities that we'd need of a franchise player.

              Edit: I should say that I love Granger and would love to keep him. But the fact is, he's our best asset and could get us something really good. At best, we'll have someone that can help put this franchise back on its feet. Worst case scenario, we end up with better financial flexibility and invest our energy and efforts in Dun at the wing position.
              Last edited by Doddage; 05-07-2008, 04:39 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                We can't trade Danny. And we won't unless something insane happens (i.e. we're made a Godfather offer for someone like Rose).

                That being said, I would love for this team to add Mayo. I think he's going to be an excellent basketball player.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                  Yes, I think Mayo will definately have a better career than Granger. I live on the WC and watched Mayo a lot, and he is better or as good as Danny in every aspect other than outside shooting and rebounding right now. But definately a much better ball handler, defender and creator before ever stepping on an NBA court, and despite a 6 years head start. Bayless is a tweener, so it's hard to say how he'll adjust. But he is far more talented than Danny as well. Danny is the type of guy who is pretty good at everything, but doesn't make the players around him better.

                  Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2. If you think we are going to stumble into drafting a guy like Kobe Bryant, I strongly disagree. If you think we are going to land a guy like Billups who played for about 5 teams before Detroit and have him blossom into a top 5 PG, then I disagree again. Detroit was mad lucky to build thier team. Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace Prince and Billups all exceeded expectations. And if you think we are going to land one in free agency of have the pices to aquire one in a trade I disagree also. The draft is the only way.
                  OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship?

                  I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship?

                    I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.
                    why can't we trade danny?

                    dunleavy is a very solid player and basically a slightly more consistent version of granger, but nobody ever said every player in the top 5 has won a championship. of course there are going to be busts or players who don't live up to expectations or those who settle for starter - all star status and don't lead their team to the title. but facts are facts and history is history and needs to be learned from. great teams become great by being bad enough to have a top 5 pick and turning that top 5 pick into an all time great or player who leads his team to the title. yes, there are a few exceptions which have been named and there are various ways of obtaining such high picks (in our case trade); but with the way the pacers are heading, we will never have a top 5 pick(s) with granger on our team unless we got VERY lucky. sure we might make a postseason or two, and may even screw up the draft pick if we ever did get a top 5, however, i want to win a championship. an nba championship. something the pacers have NEVER achieved. we can continue doing what we've done the past 30 or so years and maintain our mediocre/occasional contender ways, or we can take a chance at greatness. all i know is that having a top 5 pick does not guarantee you will win a championship...but NOT having a top 5 pick who is your best player guarantees you won't...

                    check this link out that talks about the top 5 picks from 1984-2003 and the likelihood they are to succeed and how good they turn out... http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm
                    Last edited by croz24; 05-07-2008, 05:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                      croz24-

                      I've got your back and always have on this topic.

                      The question isn't wether a Mayo or Bayless will have a better
                      career than DG or not. The question is wether the Pacers are
                      better off with a Mayo/Bayless in the backsourt + Duns at SF
                      than what they have now in the backcourt + DG at SF.

                      I obviously think the answer is YES.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                        Lots of good stuff here, first let me say this croz24, I like your argument, but watching college and highschool doesn't make you any better at this whole thing than most of us. I mean no disrespect, but you don't think alot of us do this, as well. So unless you actually get paid to scout, then there's absolutely no reason we have to take your word as golden. Hell, even then, a paid scout is wrong alot of the time.

                        So, the idea is Danny isn't a franchise guy, so move him to take a chance that a 20 year old kid will someday be better. This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

                        Let me preface it with this, potential and guys who meet their potential hardly ever meet.

                        1.) One word, Bender. He had the tools to be Kevin Garnett, I don't care what people say, and he's out of the league. Ya injuries, but he wasn't ever going to meet his potential, not by a long shot, his heart wasn't in it, imho. This pains me, but its true, I was the worlds biggest Bender or Bender move supporter.

                        2.) Reggie. He met his top end and we all are grateful. His top end of potential is what you saw in his prime. Really really good, hof good.

                        3.) Jordan, his ceiling was to be one of the best ever, if not the best ever. He maximized his potential, obviously.

                        My point is this, I agree Danny's potential isnt' maybe franchise guy, but I think he'll work and work and work to meet his potential. That is almost rare these days. If you move him and he is young by the way, just starting his prime. Then you've taken a huge step backwards, which guarantees nothing, except drafting guys with potential, guys who could be out of the league in 4 years or a shadow of what you thought they could be.

                        I'll use the previous example, Billups. He bounced around and was a bust, if you drafted Billups it was a huge mistake, you got pennies on the dollar for your return. It was a wasted pick. Billups turned into a wonderful sucess, but as a free agent for a team that he wasn't drafted by.

                        Carlos Boozer, went to Utah. I don't care what anyone says if you can get guys to go to Utah, you can get guys to come here.

                        Mike Dunleavy, guys who don't fit where they are now so you can buy low. Another way to get good players.

                        The point is that, ya, you need a franchise guy, but picking top 5 is the farthest thing from a guarantee you can have. For every CP3 there is a Darko.

                        Now as for Mayo and Bayless. You trade Danny and Mayo turns out to be an undersized two guard who can't guard his position. Bayless turns out to be a Point Guard who isn't a point guard at all, but a 6'3" combo guard who can't find the open man.

                        Or best case, they turn out to be all stars, first off it will take several years, at least for Bayless and at that point your saying to yourself, wow I wish we had a guy like Granger to go along side this kid so we could win more than 37 games.

                        Look at the Hawks, they hadn't been in the playoffs since 1999. They didn't have a winning record. Ya they had Boston reeling, but 9 years out of the playoffs and they still aren't a contender, not nearly.

                        I will say this, if the next Lebron comes out and you have a chance to trade Danny and get the number one pick, its a no brainer. You trade the farm for a Lebron or CP3.

                        Does anyone think Bayless or Mayo are the next Lebron or CP3? Heck, does anyone think Rose or Beasley are the next Lebron or CP3? Even a step further, does anyone think Rose or Beasley are as good as Oden or Durant will be, even?
                        Last edited by Speed; 05-07-2008, 08:15 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                          Have you guys that want to trade Granger for a pick ever heard the saying, 'A bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

                          The reason that's valid and pertains in this case is even the best judge's of talent get some evaluations wrong. So unless an NBA team has an abundance of riches or some other compelling reason you never see them trade a YOUNG established star for an unknown.

                          When you are where the Pacers are you don't gamble and trade a player like Danny Granger for an unknown. One, he's the most popular Pacer. Two, he's just starting to come into his prime years. Three, he's now the face of the franchise. Four, he's exactly the type of player Indiana fans love.

                          Five, if the Pacers traded him there would be immediate fallout with the fans. And sixth, by mid-season there would be a dead fieldhouse if whoever they traded him for didn't pan out immediately. Why? Because even the most diehard fans would lose confidence in managements ability to make things better.

                          The only pick I could see the Pacers even considering trading Danny for would be Rose, but if he got off to a bad start . . . like I said, the fieldhouse would be mostly empty by mid-season. Then it would be good by Pacers, because even the Simon's couldn't withstand that.
                          Last edited by Will Galen; 05-07-2008, 08:56 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                            Will-

                            You could have shortened that post to just 'he's the most popular
                            Pacer'. Cutting through all the other stuff in this thread, that's
                            what it seemingly boils down to.

                            Many Pacer fans will never get over Reggie's exit from the scene
                            and yearn desperately for the next 'Mr. Pacer'. They obviously
                            think they've found him in DG.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                              Originally posted by Rajah Brown View Post
                              Many Pacer fans will never get over Reggie's exit from the scene
                              and yearn desperately for the next 'Mr. Pacer'. They obviously
                              think they've found him in DG.
                              Given his current skill level, his potential, and his work ethic, I'm willing to take a chance on him.

                              Other than the NBA's "gotta have entertainment and hype" mentality, I've never seen any reason to buy into the "build on a star" strategy. For one thing, you don't know in advance who that will be except in very rare circumstances. For another, if that star is brought in for a couple of seasons and then leaves, you have nothing your fan base can cling to.

                              I'd rather build a strong foundation of fundamental players who may very well be role players, then look for the "star" piece as a final touch. The strong foundation makes sure you play well enough and hard enough to keep an ongoing fan base. Then, when the key player becomes available, you are ready right away instead of a few years later.

                              Understand that I don't think we have that foundation yet. I think Danny is a critical part of creating it. Even if the right deal came along, I think it would be too soon and that any great player we get in exchange will have worn out his welcome or be long gone before the rest of the pieces are brought together.
                              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


                              • #45
                                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                                Viva BillS, Will Galen and Anthem!


                                Granger doesn't have to be a franchise player to be a keeper.

                                The Pacers' roster deficiency is not limited to one "franchise player." The Pacers need five starters and at least three top-quality rotation players to be contenders. Right now, small forward is probably the only position where we are set with adequate talent for the next 3+ years.

                                So we need several pieces before we can even start talkiong about contending. right now, we've got one starter. Trade Granger away for whomever, and you'll still only have one starter.
                                Last edited by Putnam; 05-07-2008, 10:38 AM.
                                And I won't be here to see the day
                                It all dries up and blows away
                                I'd hang around just to see
                                But they never had much use for me
                                In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X