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

Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

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

  • #31
    Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    ...I'm going to drive full-throttle through Conseco. McBob will never even be as good as Shawne is right now.

    Yeah, yeah, I know that TPTB want to get rid of Shawne for PR reasons, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
    they're not just dumping shawne, they're asking for donte back. so its more a donte vs. shawne thing than a shawne vs. mcbob.

    Originally posted by Shade View Post
    Oh, and this little gem...

    ...tells me that the Kings are on crack. Donte friggin' Green for an unprotected first?
    remind me how many picks james white was worth to portland...
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

      Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
      they're not just dumping shawne, they're asking for donte back. so its more a donte vs. shawne thing than a shawne vs. mcbob.
      Correction: Williams AND an unprotected first for Donte Green.

      Man, that makes it look infinitely worse now.

      remind me how many picks james white was worth to portland...
      Unprotected #1's, especially from a lottery team >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 #2 picks

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
        I agree with you. I would keep Williams over McRoberts anyday. From watching a bit of video of McRoberts, he doesnt seem good enough for the NBA. If we had a choice to send Williams or McRoberts, it shouldnt even be a question. SEND McROBERTS
        As far as I am concerned......McRoberts or Shawne would not be a sticking point for me.

        IF the Kings TRULY has asked for Tinsley+McRoberts for Kenny Thomas.....you don't quibble over swapping out Shawne for McRoberts much less ask for Donta Greene ( who the Kings just traded for by moving Artest ).....you take the deal and run before Petrie has time to take his meds.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          As far as I am concerned......McRoberts or Shawne would not be a sticking point for me.

          IF the Kings TRULY has asked for Tinsley+McRoberts for Kenny Thomas.....you don't quibble over swapping out Shawne for McRoberts much less ask for Donta Greene ( who the Kings just traded for by moving Artest ).....you take the deal and run before Petrie has time to take his meds.
          Kenny Thomas for Tinsley/McBob is a good deal for us. Trying to keep McBob tells me that Bird is putting way too much stock into him, either as a player or a PR move. The guy SUCKS. Period. John Edwards, Take 2.

          Oh, and did I mention that McBob is a bit of a malcontent as well? He'll just be the newest pouter at the end of the bench.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

            Bird hinted at this rumor in his press conference. Saying, in regards to the backup PF he wants to get for the team, "We can get him, but it'd cost too much to do it."

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              Bird hinted at this rumor in his press conference. Saying, in regards to the backup PF he wants to get for the team, "We can get him, but it'd cost too much to do it."
              who do you think hes referring to? Do you think thats necessarily Thomas? Costing Tinsley and McRoberts isnt too much, im sure Bird has someone else in mind.
              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                who do you think hes referring to? Do you think thats necessarily Thomas? Costing Tinsley and McRoberts isnt too much, im sure Bird has someone else in mind.
                Assuming that there is any validity to these Kings/Pacers trade talks....maybe the Kings are asking for Tinsley+Shawne+Unprotected 1st for Kenny Thomas.

                Not that Shawne or McRoberts matters......I could care less about which goes.....but the Kings asking for the unprotected 1st......that is the real gem in all this and actually makes more sense to me given that we are talking about Petrie here.

                Putting on my speculation hat......it's pretty well known that the Kings have been looking to move Kenny Thomas. I do not know whether they are desperate to the point where they would move him at any cost.......but IF the Kings had any intention of buying him out.....why not try to move him for Tinsley ( who is owed about $5 mil more in guaranteed $$$ ) and ask for a unprotected 1st rounder in return....then negotiate a buyout with Tinsley ( which would have been done with Kenny Thomas anyway ). Although the cost would be about 2-3 mil more......you can look at the bottomline as getting a 1st rounder out of it. I know...it's a stretch here....but Geoff Petrie isn't a GM like Chris Wallace is....he's a pretty shrwed GM. He wouldn't make a stupid trade like this without having an ulterior motive.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                  Donte Greene is a very good scorer. He is a very capable wing player. I just don't know how he would fit into a rotation with Rush and Granger. He is tall just like Williams but he is a better scorer. Williams is a better defender. The only quam I have with Greene is that he is a selfish player.

                  The irony of this is that I was looking at this trade the day Shareef Abdur-Rahim retired. I said... I bet Sacramento would actually have the need for a backup point because they are very thin and they were looking to get rid of Kenny Thomas' contract from the day he was included as part of the CWebb trade. I would hate to see the hangup on this deal be wanting to get something more for Shawne Williams than just to get rid of Tinsley. I would really have to consider throwing Greene in for Williams if I am Sacramento because Williams plays bigger than Greene does and they are already stocked with wing players. Kenny Thomas won't play anyway and Tinsley would. Williams is more ready to contribute now than Greene is and fits the age of their young core more than Greene. If I am Indiana I just send McRoberts with Tinsley and get the f----ng thing done.
                  "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                    Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                    Donte Greene is a very good scorer. He is a very capable wing player. I just don't know how he would fit into a rotation with Rush and Granger. He is tall just like Williams but he is a better scorer. Williams is a better defender. The only quam I have with Greene is that he is a selfish player.

                    The irony of this is that I was looking at this trade the day Shareef Abdur-Rahim retired. I said... I bet Sacramento would actually have the need for a backup point because they are very thin and they were looking to get rid of Kenny Thomas' contract from the day he was included as part of the CWebb trade. I would hate to see the hangup on this deal be wanting to get something more for Shawne Williams than just to get rid of Tinsley. I would really have to consider throwing Greene in for Williams if I am Sacramento because Williams plays bigger than Greene does and they are already stocked with wing players. Kenny Thomas won't play anyway and Tinsley would. Williams is more ready to contribute now than Greene is and fits the age of their young core more than Greene. If I am Indiana I just send McRoberts with Tinsley and get the f----ng thing done.
                    If the trade rumor is Kenny Thomas for Tinsley+McRobert ( or Shawne ) AND that's it.....then it would have been done already. There has got to be something else here. No GM that has a shread of ability voluntarily asks for Tinsley without getting something in return.....a unprotected 1st rounder for a Playoff bubble team would fit here.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                      Also, to reiterate the point that Avoiding made... they didn't want to throw Williams in this trade over McRoberts because they like McRoberts more. It is CLEARLY that they are trying to pry Donte Greene away from Sacto in this deal. Greene would have the highest trade value in this deal.

                      Tinsley is a MUCH better player than Kenny Thomas. I love the way Kenny Thomas plays and really have liked him throughout his career. But his career is over. He is ineffective now because he relied so heavily on his athleticism to play defense and rebound as a very undersized player. He is worthless in terms of on-court contribution and has an enormous contract. Sacto would be getting a steal in the Tinsley and McRoberts for Thomas deal. Their offset is the extra money on Tinsley's contract, but they would get a player that would contribute for them. Bobby Jackson was brought in to play spot minutes and be a veteran presence until he retires after this year and becomes an assistant coach for Sacramento. Tinsley would come in and be an immediate backup PG for them to a guy that has not played a full year of starter minutes. I think its a great deal for Sacramento.
                      "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        Correction: Williams AND an unprotected first for Donte Green.

                        Man, that makes it look infinitely worse now.
                        yeah thats what sacto wanted but you were ready to go ape**** if we held mcbob over shawne.

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        Unprotected #1's, especially from a lottery team >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 #2 picks
                        i'm not arguing that. i'm saying portland wanted 3 2nd rounders for a guy like james white, what is unreasonable if they're happy with donte for them to want a 1st for him?


                        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                        who do you think hes referring to? Do you think thats necessarily Thomas? Costing Tinsley and McRoberts isnt too much, im sure Bird has someone else in mind.
                        nobody wants kenny thomas.

                        i didn't hear the presser so this is completely unfounded but my best guess is landry. if reports are accurate about preparing to extend an offer, the 3mil a year from the bobcats/rockets would have been too rich for us.

                        was bird talking about a PF in general or specifically sacto?
                        This is the darkest timeline.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                          Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                          Also, to reiterate the point that Avoiding made... they didn't want to throw Williams in this trade over McRoberts because they like McRoberts more. It is CLEARLY that they are trying to pry Donte Greene away from Sacto in this deal. Greene would have the highest trade value in this deal.

                          Tinsley is a MUCH better player than Kenny Thomas. I love the way Kenny Thomas plays and really have liked him throughout his career. But his career is over. He is ineffective now because he relied so heavily on his athleticism to play defense and rebound as a very undersized player. He is worthless in terms of on-court contribution and has an enormous contract. Sacto would be getting a steal in the Tinsley and McRoberts for Thomas deal. Their offset is the extra money on Tinsley's contract, but they would get a player that would contribute for them. Bobby Jackson was brought in to play spot minutes and be a veteran presence until he retires after this year and becomes an assistant coach for Sacramento. Tinsley would come in and be an immediate backup PG for them to a guy that has not played a full year of starter minutes. I think its a great deal for Sacramento.
                          I'm not saying that Kenny Thomas is any answer for us as a Low-Post PF option....but I would take him over Tinsley any day of the week.

                          BTW....your opinion of Tinsley is proverbially very "rose-colored". For as many reasons why a team would not want Kenny Thomas.....there are equal if not more reasons not to want a player like Tinsley. At best...this would be a trade of team cancers that may fit some needs for both teams. But in truth....I still question why the Kings would need a player like Tinsley since they committed to ( but IMHO overpaid ) Beno for 4 seasons at a rate of $6 mil per season.....the logic in why the Kings would even consider this escapes me. Given Bird's rather cryptic comments that teams maybe interested in Tinsley ( but at a high cost )....I wouldn't be surprised if there has been some talk regarding this between the Kings/Pacers.....but I really wonder if the cost is the 1st rounder as some have speculated....which IMHO is too high.

                          Also....I popped into VF21's KingsFan website along with the Kings RealGM forum and found no mention of this anywhere.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 09-26-2008, 01:10 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                            You know what? How bout we just forget kenny thomas all together? Sacramento wants to get rid of Brad Miller right? They are in rebuilding mode and he is an old player and doesn't really mesh with the direction they are going. Granted he is an expiring contract for them but I think they wouldn't mind dumping him. So here's the plan: Tinsley, Williams, Daniels, Graham for Miller and John Salmons. For those who say the kings don't want tinsley cause they have udrih and jackson, well b-jax isn't really a point guard. he's always been a 2 gaurd. tinsley would be a perfect backup for them and be good competition for Beno. The incentive for sactown here is they pick up THREE expiring contracts while getting imediate help. Then we'd have both miller and rasho's contracts coming off teh books next year for some insane cap relief while also picking up a very solid player in salmons. I'm crazy... i know...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              Bird hinted at this rumor in his press conference. Saying, in regards to the backup PF he wants to get for the team, "We can get him, but it'd cost too much to do it."
                              Gotta be Landry.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Whisper of trade talk with Sacramento.

                                Originally posted by Phree Refill View Post
                                You know what? How bout we just forget kenny thomas all together? Sacramento wants to get rid of Brad Miller right? They are in rebuilding mode and he is an old player and doesn't really mesh with the direction they are going. Granted he is an expiring contract for them but I think they wouldn't mind dumping him. So here's the plan: Tinsley, Williams, Daniels, Graham for Miller and John Salmons. For those who say the kings don't want tinsley cause they have udrih and jackson, well b-jax isn't really a point guard. he's always been a 2 gaurd. tinsley would be a perfect backup for them and be good competition for Beno. The incentive for sactown here is they pick up THREE expiring contracts while getting imediate help. Then we'd have both miller and rasho's contracts coming off teh books next year for some insane cap relief while also picking up a very solid player in salmons. I'm crazy... i know...
                                Brad's not an expiring. He has 2 seasons left.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X