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

  • #46
    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

    Originally posted by Eindar View Post
    Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

    Russel Westbrook
    Kosta Koufos
    Donte Green
    Anthony Randolph
    Bird said PG and C... that would not include Green and Randolph, who would also be redundant with Shawne. But I'm not sure I would believe everything Bird says, whose misled us in the past... I do like Randolph at #11, but don't think he'll be there. If we pick him up, I'd expect a trade of Shawne to get back into the draft to address our need at PG.

    Westbrook, Randolph, Speights, Augustin

    Talked to a buddy who is a big OSU fan and he said Koufos isn't very good. He's a C that likes to spend time out at the 3PT line and doesn't like to bang or play defense.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
      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.
      Well said.
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #48
        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.
        Wayman Tisdale is going to punch you square in the mouth. Bender would too but he can't risk the injury to his tiny wrist.


        Yeah, I don't get this "must draft high" case contuining on. Rik was a top 5, but was he really more key than Reggie, Dale and Jackson? You very clearly can build a title team without a top 5 pick, even if later you are trading for or signing one.

        The success rate of intentional nose dives is pretty poor IMO. The Bulls have yet to truly recover and it's 10 years now. Then other teams like the Spurs had an artificial tank, they KEPT their guys and lost due to injury.

        Granger doesn't have to be a franchise player to be a keeper.
        I'm also in that camp with you guys. It's a rebuild. So first you slot in which players are answers at their pay and their role. Diener good enough to play backup PG at his pay and willing to do so? If yes then mark it down.

        You aren't "building around" those answers, you are just pre-assembling the supporting cast. And at this early stage there is so much room for a star player that it doesn't hurt at all. If you set it up so you HAD to get a star Center and a star PG is on the board/FA/trade available then maybe it's an issue, but for now you just get as ready as you can to slot in that star and run.

        The wide open needs means that anything other than a truly elite SF is going to be just what Indy needs. This is why I'm not anti-Westbrook, just anti him as the PG answer. They could use an athletic, defensive SG too.

        Let the players and opportunities fall into place rather than trying to force things, it'll end up costing a lot more if you force it.


        No way Koufos is on the Pacers board. No way.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

          Originally posted by Speed View Post
          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 think this is the key point in this discussion. We have a known commodity with Granger. He's already a very good player. Not only is a good player, but he's gotten better every year. It's not just his statistics that are improving either. He's become a better long-range shooter. He's become a better ball-handler. He's showing signs of becoming both a better finisher and a better passer. How has he done this? He works hard to improve.

          We also know how he reacts to being a millionaire for the first time in his life. He's been one for 3 years now and he hasn't screwed anything up. You may have watched Mayo and Bayless play in college, but can you tell me what they're going to do once they've got a couple million in their pockets? You can't.

          I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Danny. I'm just saying I'd be very, very careful doing so. If you move him, you've got to hit a home run with the trade. You've got to get a guy who, in the near future, is unarguably a better player than Granger is. I like Mayo and Bayless, but I don't see either one of them as sure things.
          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

          - Salman Rushdie

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

            As has been said already DG for Rose maybe and no additional picks.
            Danny is a rising probable all-star, who defends, scores and rebounds.
            He has proven to be durable and not an embarrasment to the team.
            So lets trade him for an unproven rookie in the 3-5 range?
            Who has proven nothing? Wow.
            If the Pacers did that it would add an additionaly 3-4 years on the re-build time.

            If Love is there that is who Bird is going to pick. That adds another piece to the puzzle.
            Next year he drafts a center. JO is traded in the last year of his contract for a guard .
            That is how I see it playing out. At least that is a possible plan.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

              Originally posted by Mal View Post
              Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?
              JOB isn't even close to being on their level. He can't sniff their underwear.

              There's a difference between building around a system that works, and JOB's.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                Originally posted by owl View Post
                If Love is there that is who Bird is going to pick. That adds another piece to the puzzle.
                Next year he drafts a center. JO is traded in the last year of his contract for a guard .
                That is how I see it playing out. At least that is a possible plan.
                I could absolutely see this happening in some form. JOs contract becomes a nice asset after this year and should, at very least bring in a good prospect or two for teams that are either up against the cap, want to make a play for Lebron or that group or a team that sees a top 5 in the league shot blocker as the missing piece for a year and provide cap relief.

                Not to side track the discussing, but it shows that their are other ways to improve then having a top 5 pick. Lots of them.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                  Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                  It's poorly written.

                  I'm taking it as: "The rules have changed regarding getting prospects into our building for workouts. I'm not sure if it's a good rule or not."
                  And he's also suggesting that for teams picking below the top spots, say top 10 perhaps, they volume of players those teams can get in and their preferred status for picks (higher = more money) means they are going to hog all the top prospects.

                  If a team could only get a few in at a time then the others would have open schedules for teams like Indy to get them in. But if Miami can have 8 guys in for a few days (given travel, etc) instead of 4 then they might be holding up 8 of the top 12 prospects.

                  Now pass that down the line to team 2 who was already waiting, etc.

                  Worse yet is if you are Miami then even if you don't care beyond Rose/Beasely it's still smart strategy to "filabuster" these prospects simply to hinder the competition from knowing what's what.

                  For any given team the chance to have more guys at the same time is great, but ultimately it creates a logjam early on where the lower teams have to sit on their hands and wait for players to get a clear schedule.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                    For any given team the chance to have more guys at the same time is great, but ultimately it creates a logjam early on where the lower teams have to sit on their hands and wait for players to get a clear schedule.
                    I think they need to address the whole deal of players working out for teams. It has worts as you pointed out. Players also get jet lag and tired from flying around the country.

                    They could streamline this process a lot. I know last year, teams started to look at players together. There's six divisions, maybe teams should get together as divisions and work the players out that way. Then the player could spend the day talking to the various teams coaching staffs and scouts and they could get a feel for them that way.

                    I don't really think these workouts are really necessary other than getting a feel for a player face to face. As for the psychological tests why should a player have to do ten of them? Get together and give him one.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                      Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2.
                      Q: Did all these champions trade away their best player to draft in the top 5, or did they perhaps just draft from the spot that their record slotted them?

                      I think everyone gets that it's nice to pick in the top 5. Where we don't agree is that it's a great idea to trade our best player for a pick in the top 5.

                      And it's either overly pessimistic or short-sighted to say that the draft is "the only way." Might as well call up Miami and LA and tell them that the Shaq and Gasol trades don't really count.
                      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                        Q: Did all these champions trade away their best player to draft in the top 5, or did they perhaps just draft from the spot that their record slotted them?

                        I think everyone gets that it's nice to pick in the top 5. Where we don't agree is that it's a great idea to trade our best player for a pick in the top 5.

                        And it's either overly pessimistic or short-sighted to say that the draft is "the only way." Might as well call up Miami and LA and tell them that the Shaq and Gasol trades don't really count.
                        I agree, but the start of thier teams was the draft. Wade and Kobe were both attained through the draft. You can't get a great player like that through a trade without completely gutting your team! And we are probably never going to see the stars align good enough to land one in free agency no matter how much cap room we have.

                        Without Kobe, Gasol is irrelevant, and without Wade so was the Shaq deal. And furthurmore Shaq wouldn't have went to Miami if Wade wasn't there.

                        I also agree that it's usually not a good idea to trade your best player, but Danny isn't our best player when everyone is healthy. People on here already want to trade our best player. Danny isn't even an all-star. In fact he'll have a hard time ever making an all star team. Do you honestly see him beating out most of the guys on this list next year...

                        Wade, James, Marion, Pirece, Carter, Jefferson, Hamilton, Deng, J. Johnson, A. Igoudala, M. Redd, J. Richardson

                        He is not a better SF than Pierce, James, Marion or Jefferson, and he is definately not a better 2 than Wade, Redd, Hamilton or Joe Johnson. The rest are debatable, but really close.

                        People on here are vastly overrating Danny. He is a solid SF, but not a player you can build a team around and be successful. And after all, it's not like we would be depleting our SF position by moving him, Dunleavy, S. Williams, and Graham (cheap resigning) would all still be here.
                        Last edited by Taterhead; 05-08-2008, 03:30 AM.
                        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Wayman Tisdale is going to punch you square in the mouth. Bender would too but he can't risk the injury to his tiny wrist.


                          Yeah, I don't get this "must draft high" case contuining on. Rik was a top 5, but was he really more key than Reggie, Dale and Jackson? You very clearly can build a title team without a top 5 pick, even if later you are trading for or signing one.
                          I respect your opinion, but your best example of bulding a title team while not having a top 5 pick was not even a title team. The truth is they did have a top 5 pick and made it to the Finals. And yes, Rik had a lot to do with that. He was a major match-up problem until we faced the teams that put us out most of the time (Magic-Shaq, Knicks-Ewing, Lakers-Shaq). The Pacers came up short because of it. At the end of the day they did not have an answer for the more talented players who coincidentally were higher draft picks.

                          In fact there isn't a title team that did not have one that I can think of over the last 30 years, so where is this evidence that you can CLEARLY build a title team without one? It doesn't exist, the opposite is entirely true and history defends that pont of view. Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?

                          Of course there are a lot of misses. But the people on this board act like picking at 11 is a lock. It's far more likely that the player picked at 11 turns out to be a major dud. People also ignore the fact that resigning Granger to a large extension is going to take away all the flexibility of Jermaine's contract ending. It will ensure we are right up against the cap for the next 3 seasons without signing a single draft pick or free agent. We won't have the room to sign one free agent to a contract more than 5-7 million dollars until the offseason before 2011-2012.

                          People also continue to bring up Bender, but let me tell you, Bender would have no doubt been a better player than Granger if it wasn't for his injuries. And you can never tell who is going to have injury issues and who isn't. The Pacers took a gamble that didn't pay off, but they did not make an error in talent evaluation. Bender was a project that never got a chance to reach it's conclusion. You add a healthy developed Bender to the squad that lost in the ECF a few years back and the Pacers could've won the title, there is no doubt in my mind.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.
                            I agree, nothing gurantees championships. But sitting around waiting for something to fall in your lap gurantees failure, IMO.

                            Of course top 5 picks are far from locks, as is anything in life. The issue is getting that opportunity and cashing in.

                            The Pacers for years played it safe. They did it all throughout the 90's and wasted 5-6 opportunities to win the title. There was a time when Charles Barkley listed us as a team he wanted to play for when he left Pheonix. But we didn't want to give up a package of good solid players and draft picks to get a great player to help take the load off Reggie. They could've made the move for Barkley and easily replaced whoever they had to give up, but refused and in the end got the same result they would have if they gambled and failed.
                            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              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.

                              1. Yes I've heard that saying, always thought it was bull*****.
                              2. Danny Granger is not an established "star"
                              3. The fieldhouse is already dead. People aren't going there to watch Danny Granger. And they never will, unless the team is contending for a division title at the very least.
                              4. I don't have any confidence in management, and reading the board this is one area where I'm in the majority.
                              5. Of course it's a gamble, but trading guys like Murphy, Tinsley, Dunleavy, Diogu, S. Williams and JO (right now) are probable steps back, lateral moves at best. So it's likely unless we get the steal of the draft at #11 we will be bad again next year.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                                Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?
                                I DO!!! let's see: spurs - duncan, hornets - paul, jazz - dwill, lakers - kobe/gasol (kobe came out of high which is the ONLY reason he wasn't top 5), magic - howard, cavs - bron, pistons - billups/sheed, celtics - kg/allen...ALL the leader(s) on their respective teams and ALL top 5 picks in the draft (outside of kobe of course)...as i said earlier, high schoolers should be the only exceptions to this because most of these guys would have been top 5 had they played at least 1 year of college ball...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X