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

  • #61
    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

    I agree with both of you guys. I really do. However, I see Danny as the quintessential Pippen/Robin number two guy. We all want a number one but why set back our rebuilding process a couple of years for the chance (remember Jonathan Bender?!) at a number one when we already have a budding all-star?

    I'd rather be patient and wait for the opportunity and not overpay/destroy the entire team for just the chance at hitting the home run (which btw, still wouldn't be a panacea, or do you think that Bayless or Mayo will be enough to lead this franchise to to a championship?).

    Patient and wait for the opportunity to strike. I'm pretty sure that is what a lor of these teams did - Pistons (Billups and Sheed); Lakers (Gasol); Celtics (KG/Allen); Utah (got the opportunity to trade up for Williams without great cost, trading Granger is a great cost).

    The rest just struck gold, which we could also wait to do, of course. You can't force that Spurs (Duncan at 1), Cavs (Lebron at 1), Magic (Howard at 1), NO (Paul slipping to 4 - obviously if a guy like Rose slips to 4 or something we should trade anything to get him.).

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
      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.

      You don't have any confidence in management, yet you would like management to trade Granger for a top 5 pick in the hope we get a franchise player.

      Your logic is about as bad as it gets!!!!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

        Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
        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.
        Yeah, because the gamble for rising DPOY Ron Artest worked out so well.
        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


        • #64
          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

          One point I don't see in this thread is that we already do have that allstar player that would allow Granger to be our "Pippen". JO is not only an allstar but is that major matchup problem "when healthy". Of course the past couple of years his health has been the issue. Can we bank on the fact that he and Tinman will go injury free this year? Of course not, but the fact remains that their salaries are on our books and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Unless the Simons are willing to pull a James Dolan, we have to cross our fingers and hope for good health and another couple years to get the cap flexibility to either sign, trade for or develop the next Pacer allstar player. Then hope we've been smart with our draft picks and trades in the meantime to have the supporting cast we need.

          One other note, (i'm too lazy to look up who made this statement...lol) someone was touting how Granger was a role model and a good millionaire. True, but the casual fans are not going to ever turn out enmasse to watch Granger or any other Pacer no mattter how "nice" they are unless one of the following occurs:

          1) DG or someone else starts scoring and taking over games like a CPIII, LeBron or Kobe can
          2) The Pacers gets to the playoff as a LEGITIMATE contender


          And lets face it, the casual fans are the ones who are missing from Conseco.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

            Let's look for the "proven" formula of trading your best player(s) for a top pick that leads you to the glory of the NBA crown.

            Spurs? I know they sucked due to injuries, which led to Tim Duncan. I believe Robinson was a top pick, did they trade their best players for that chance? Or did they just suck and it worked out?

            Heat? Sucked enough to have a top pick in a great 2003 draft, and Wade ended up being better than advertised. They traded 3 starters for Shaq, but only because the Lakers thought they had to trade him.

            Pistons? Even the year they ended up winning, they most likely weren't beating Indiana in the playoffs until they got Rasheed Wallace that February. The rest of those starters were either trades (Billups, Hamilton, B.Wallace) or a non-lottery 1st (Prince).

            Lakers? Kobe was a mid-1st pick. Shaq came to LA as a free agent (and this would never happen here because we're not the Lakers, in LA).

            Bulls? At least this one was a trade for a pick that landed their star Jordan, but wasn't the trade made 1 or 2 years ago? On top of that, the Blazers had to take Bowie @ #2 to have Jordan there for the taking. Obviously it turned out great, but I don't see a "by design" plan in action to trade their best guys for a top pick to make this all work out. Anyone have more on that trade?

            Rockets? They sucked enough to draft Olajuwon, didn't they?

            BB Pistons? Did they trade for the picks for Isiah or Dumars?

            Showtime Lakers? Did they trade for the pick for Magic Johnson?

            Celtics? Did they trade for the pick for Bird?

            Depending on the answer to these questions, maybe a couple of them at best did. I'm hardly convinced that's what we HAVE to do.

            If we should model after any modern winner, it should be the 2004 Pistons. Find pieces that aren't working where they are, that you think could work together if you assemble them. Draft wisely.

            There's no promises in this league, you can only make choices that seem reasonable to you. You certainly shouldn't gamble lightly. Such as trading your best young player and more in the hopes that someone MIGHT like that better than they're top pick, which MIGHT turn out to be a superstar.

            I'd care to say that the odds are against you if you go that method, and it's a method that, when it fails, puts you in a much worse hole than we're in right now. If you think people are moaning now, if you think it's horrible now, just wait if we go this route.

            Don't call me a genius if I buy a lottery ticket and happen to win.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              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.
              Well I think it is nice to see the core prospects on court together without the chaff of NCAA filler in the mix. I do like your idea of running these things in sub-groups. My guess is that teams want to look at certain arrangements that goes in line with their own plans. Like the Pacers may not want to see SFs out there at all, they might want to run drills/scrimmages that focus on PG play instead.

              It's a tough call. Clearly they are trying to adjust and make it work better, but each change brings new problems to solve.

              Of course at the very least they better have 15+ games of tape on each player and have scouts that solve them each live a few times. Doing it on a part time basis via Tivo I was able to see about 5+ for perhaps 17 of the top 20 prospects. I'd hope they were using workouts more to verify what they think they already know.

              I mean if you want PG tryouts just go look at Collison or Augustin vs Rose for starters, or Rose being defended by Mayo, Lopez vs Love, the list goes on. A lot of "tryouts" have already occured with real wins and losses on the line.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?
                So the Lakers are going to the top because of Gasol and Odom, not Kobe?

                Also, give me the list of teams without at least 1 top 5 pick....not so fast, the Pacers have #3 Dunleavy. If most teams have at least 1 top 5 pick then the odds are that the teams in the title hunt have one. Wow. Notice how many teams have a guy under 6'5", proves that you have to get shorter players in order to even have a chance. Or it proves that top 5 picks tend to linger in the NBA and spread out across many teams.


                Celtics? Did they trade for the pick for Bird?
                Not a top 5, went at #6.
                They did trade their #1 (JB Carroll) to GS for the #3 (McHale) AND Robert Parish. Really.

                Now imagine the Pacers trading Danny and the #11 to move to #6, finding out EJ is another JB Carroll and watching #11 Love/Westbrook/pick 'em and Granger go on to be an AS tandem. Trading up has burned many teams.

                Showtime Lakers? Did they trade for the pick for Magic Johnson?
                Basically.
                Then they come into the 1979 draft possessing the No. 1 overall pick courtesy of the New Orleans Jazz, who had signed Lakers free agent Gail Goodrich three years earlier.
                http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...aintso_lakers/

                Also mentions that the Lakers trading the #8 they got from KC to Boston is what made Boston comfortable with drafting Bird despite him possibly returning to ISU for another season. With the 6 and 8 they felt okay about that risk since they'd still be getting a top player that season, except that player was Freeman Williams.


                Again, if 28 of 30 teams have at least 1 top 5 pick on their roster then naturally most to all teams in the playoffs will have a top 5 player on their team. The key is HOW did that player get there and is that player the main reason they are there.

                I could just as easily prove how horrible it is to have a top 5 pick by listing all the bottom teams with at least 1 top 5 pick, including Miami this year. This means that logically the argument that you must have a top 5 pick is moot.

                With that off the table your better research would be into what the top 5 picks do across the board, looking at ALL top 5 picks and what they turn into. I'm conceding the ability to trade that pick/player, as Boston did to get KG. But Detroit didn't get Sheed with a top 5 pick. Detroit was able to assemble a team basically without using many if any top 5 assets (or top 5 players like Stack acquired with other top 5 picks). They were able to get something out of Hill thanks to the sign and trade bump he got in salary vs just going as a true FA, with Big Ben returning. Of course that was non-drafted, non-AS Ben Wallace at the time.


                The Lakers used CAP SPACE to sign Shaq and traded Vlade for a post 10 pick to get Kobe. In other words they neither had to stink nor had to have a top 5 pick in order to win 3 titles and win 70 games.
                Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 05-08-2008, 11:56 AM.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                  *disrespectful comment removed* in my second post on trading granger i asked this..."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..."

                  as for my "better research", did you follow the link i provided at all that analyzed every top 5 pick from 1984 to 2003 and how they turned out? i have answered every rebuttal you've stated if you would just READ my posts.

                  and as i've stated, we have to trade for the top 5 pick because with granger, the pacers will never be bad enough to gain that pick unless they got very lucky. and free agents like a shaq will never choose an indiana over a los angeles or miami...

                  i get tired having to constantly repeat myself and what taterhead has said because people don't read our posts.

                  - you brought up kobe...i already talked about kobe and high schoolers (regardless gasol and odom were top 5 and 7 of the 8 playoff teams have top 5 picks as their best player)

                  - i've clearly stated the teams who are winning titles are those who have their best player/leader as a top 5 pick (bird was 6, but because he was drafted a year early. had he been drafted AFTER making the title game vs msu and AFTER winning the naismith award he would have gone 1 or 2)

                  - prove to me using fact how horrible it is because it looks to me like the teams with top 5 picks as their best player are the teams who are advancing in the playoffs (didn't miami win a title recently with wade?)

                  - did you follow my link at all analyzing top 5 picks and how they turn out?

                  - again, i answered the shaq situation in previous posts

                  i'm so adament on trading for this pick because the pacers have no other way. as taterhead stated, trading picks is the easiest and most feasible chance the pacers have of landing a great one. even if the player doesn't turn out to be great and lead us to a championship, history and % tell us he will at least be an all-star. something granger will probably never claim.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                    I've said it before and I'll say it again.

                    There is no absolute way to win a title. If there were then everyone would do it.

                    Luck and skill are almost equal contributers to the mix.

                    You can't say the best player in the league is the answer because up until now I believe Kevin Garnett (who is arguably the best individual overall player in the past 5 years) does not have a ring.

                    However having a great team of roll players does not guarantee success either (see the Pacers from 94-00).

                    As to Granger, I'll say this.

                    We did not win a title last season we did not get eliminated from the title round.

                    So therefor there are no untouchable players.

                    Having said that I will say this, the person or people we trade Danny for have to be better than he is. Or if you get two players back combined they have to be equal to and fill other needs we have.


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

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                      I'd rather build like Boston and keep our Pierce (Granger) and acquire the necessary pieces through having traded the other pieces around Granger.

                      I'm not sure I want to tank like Boston did, though, for years.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                        Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                        [color=red]

                        i get tired having to constantly repeat myself and what taterhead has said because people don't read our posts.

                        Au contraire, it's not that we aren't reading your posts, it's we aren't falling blindly in line with how you feel. Others are just in disagreement with your view. Sorry, but I am one that disagrees with you and Taterhead.

                        Unlike Pacer fans gambling with the Simon's money/franchise and never having to ever be held responsible isn't a luxury Bird has. Trading Granger for a 5 pick will never happen.

                        Will Galen said it very appropriately "a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush." The Pacers have a proven commodity in Granger where as the pick has proved nothing in the NBA. Zero, zilch, zippo.

                        I'm still waiting, so is Portland, on Oden to do something in the NBA! There is no guarantee he will be as great as the hype he received at draft time last year. How many millions did Portland pay for that unproven #1 pick to sit on the bench this past season?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                          i understand the varying points of view, but naptown was bringing about questions which i had already answered...

                          owell. i just want to win a championship and am tired of pacers management screwing that up. the pacers in the 90s should have won at least one title, and would have had they taken a chance. i don't recall the sir charles rumors but we were one player/impact player away and we stood pat. we are doing the exact same thing as a franchise now. standing pat. HOPING things work out in our favor instead of deciding our own fate. granger is a very solid player for the pacers and i would love for him to be with us as a #3 option, but not as a #1...

                          what does our future look like? honestly. it's not very bright imo. we don't have any assets to trade for a kg or ray allen to come here so we can't build like boston. we don't have the city appeal to build like a miami or los angeles. our only hope is the draft. WE NEEDED TO TANK! tanking ourselves into the top 5 slot would have been ideal. you keep granger to pair with a future all star. granger then could be used as what he was drafted as. but for some reason, management thought it best to try to make the postseason. but why? we are headed nowhere! would you rather be in the pacers' position or miami's? miami even with the worst record in the league had more talent than us. and now they get to add a beasley/rose to wade and marion. that team will be an instant contender. seems like every team in the league knows what it takes to win but the pacers...

                          just about every top 5 pick in history has had all star/greatness potential, it's just that most of how they turn out as players depends upon their mentality. so we'd have to draft someone mentally strong. danny granger is NOT an all star player. danny was labeled a sure thing out of college (5yrs of college) and only in his 5th yr sr year put up the types of #s that mayo and bayless put up as freshman. and mayo and bayless' #s surpassed grangers collegiate #s. danny was NEVER as highly touted as those two and did his damage in college against lesser competition...

                          technically, every player in the draft is an 'unknown'. so that means jordan, bird, magic, wilt, shaq, duncan, zeke, russell etc etc were also unknowns at one time. the odds are in your favor of at least finding a player = to granger's talent in the top 5. the difference between players picked top 5 and anywhere else however, is the vast majority of nba hall of famers and leaders on title winning teams were top 5 picks...ugh. i'm done rambling and am tired of this argument. waiting for the stars to align is never the way to go imo...
                          Last edited by croz24; 05-08-2008, 11:22 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                            Put it this way. . .if you draft smart, all that talk about tanking, trading star player. . .it really doesn't mater.

                            Just because Danny isn't gonna be on the All-Star team doesn't mean he is going to suck. If the Pacers start winning and are at the top of the East, I'm sure Danny will get some kind of recognition if he's a BIG part of the Pacers winning. Trading him only deteriorates our talent even more.
                            R.I.P. Bernic Mac & Isaac Hayes

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                              Originally posted by BillS View Post
                              Yeah, because the gamble for rising DPOY Ron Artest worked out so well.
                              What gamble? We traded Jalen Rose and got Miller and Artest. That trade was a major steal at the time. And we did win 60 games and make the ECF. Nobody could foresee the events that unfolded.
                              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Star}Pacers look at players who fit style

                                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                                You don't have any confidence in management, yet you would like management to trade Granger for a top 5 pick in the hope we get a franchise player.

                                Your logic is about as bad as it gets!!!!
                                Do you have confidence in management? They've got the short end of every trade the last 4-5 trades or so. THEY decided to keep giving Tinsley and Artest chance after chance. THEY decided to give O'neal 100+ million dollars. THEY decided to take on Murphy and Dunleavy's contracts. THEY have drafted 2 euro players who are probably never even going to suit up for us. And THEY will decide Danny Granger is a guy THEY can build this team around and give him a max deal after this year. And I think THEY will be wrong yet again.

                                I don't think they will do this, but I think they should.

                                If I owned the team I would have fired Bird the day the season ended and completely started fresh.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X