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

ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

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

  • #31
    Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

    Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
    I'm not all caught up in All-Star this and that. I just want a guy on our team we can throw it to, and he can find a way to score.

    Who in the NBA can do that and is NOT usually an all-star?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
      Who in the NBA can do that and is NOT usually an all-star?
      An interesting way to look at it is by FG percentage, of which JO was abysmal.

      Here's a list below of the top 50. (Sorry it's a bit choppy).

      Of that list, I would entertain trades for these two that might be obtainable:

      Diaw (12)
      Deng (21)

      There's a couple of 2 guards I'd look at as well, but I don't think that's what we need right now.

      1 M. Moore, NJN 79 9.8 3.9 6.4 308 506 .609 308 505 .610 1.53 .609
      2 D. Howard, ORL 82 17.6 6.4 10.6 526 873 .603 525 871 .603 1.65 .603
      3 A. Biedrins, GSW 82 9.5 4.2 7.1 348 581 .599 348 581 .599 1.35 .599
      4 E. Curry, NYK 81 19.5 7.2 12.5 585 1016 .576 584 1015 .575 1.55 .576
      5 A. Stoudemire, PHO 82 20.4 7.4 12.9 607 1055 .575 607 1052 .577 1.58 .575
      6 C. Boozer, UTH 74 20.9 8.7 15.6 647 1154 .561 647 1154 .561 1.34 .561
      7 A. Bogut, MIL 66 12.3 5.3 9.5 348 629 .553 347 624 .556 1.29 .554
      8 R. Patterson, MIL 81 14.7 5.9 10.7 475 867 .548 472 848 .557 1.38 .550
      9 T. Duncan, SAS 80 20.0 7.7 14.1 618 1131 .546 617 1122 .550 1.41 .547
      10 S. Dalembert, PHI 82 10.7 4.3 8.0 356 658 .541 356 656 .543 1.34 .541
      11 P. Gasol, MEM 59 20.8 7.8 14.5 462 858 .538 459 847 .542 1.43 .540
      12 B. Diaw, PHO 73 9.7 4.2 7.8 306 569 .538 291 524 .555 1.25 .551
      13 E. Brand, LAC 80 20.5 8.1 15.1 645 1211 .533 644 1210 .532 1.36 .533
      14 S. Nash, PHO 76 18.6 6.8 12.8 517 971 .532 361 628 .575 1.45 .613
      15 E. Okafor, CHA 67 14.4 5.9 11.0 394 740 .532 394 740 .532 1.30 .532
      16 C. Wilcox, SEA 82 13.5 5.3 10.0 433 819 .529 433 813 .533 1.35 .529
      17 H. Warrick, MEM 82 12.7 4.5 8.7 373 712 .524 373 704 .530 1.47 .524
      18 S. Marion, PHO 80 17.5 7.0 13.4 561 1071 .524 481 819 .587 1.31 .561
      19 T. Parker, SAS 77 18.6 7.4 14.2 570 1096 .520 555 1058 .525 1.30 .527
      20 G. Hill, ORL 65 14.4 5.3 10.2 342 660 .518 340 648 .525 1.42 .520
      21 L. Deng, CHI 82 18.8 7.7 14.9 630 1218 .517 629 1211 .519 1.26 .518
      22 M. Yao, HOU 48 25.0 8.8 17.1 423 819 .516 423 817 .518 1.47 .516
      23 A. Jefferson, BOS 69 16.0 6.6 12.8 453 882 .514 453 881 .514 1.26 .514
      24 M. Blount, MIN 82 12.3 5.2 10.2 427 839 .509 418 808 .517 1.20 .514
      25 G. Wallace, CHA 72 18.1 6.6 13.2 478 952 .502 439 832 .528 1.37 .523
      26 D. Nowitzki, DAL 78 24.6 8.6 17.2 673 1341 .502 601 1168 .515 1.43 .529
      27 N. Collison, SEA 82 9.6 3.9 7.8 318 636 .500 318 634 .502 1.24 .500
      28 C. Bosh, TOR 69 22.6 7.9 15.9 543 1094 .496 531 1059 .501 1.43 .502
      29 U. Haslem, MIA 79 10.7 4.5 9.1 353 717 .492 353 713 .495 1.18 .492
      30 M. Harpring, UTH 77 11.6 4.2 8.5 322 656 .491 309 617 .501 1.36 .501
      31 D. Wade, MIA 51 27.4 9.3 18.9 472 962 .491 451 883 .511 1.45 .502
      32 Z. Ilgauskas, CLE 78 11.9 4.9 10.2 385 793 .485 385 792 .486 1.17 .485
      33 J. Terry, DAL 81 16.7 6.3 13.1 514 1063 .484 352 693 .508 1.27 .560
      34 A. Parker, TOR 73 12.4 4.5 9.4 328 687 .477 213 426 .500 1.31 .561
      35 L. James, CLE 78 27.3 9.9 20.8 772 1621 .476 673 1311 .513 1.32 .507
      36 L. Barbosa, PHO 80 18.1 6.6 13.9 529 1111 .476 339 673 .504 1.30 .562
      37 D. West, NOR 52 18.3 7.3 15.2 377 792 .476 369 767 .481 1.20 .481
      38 K. Garnett, MIN 76 22.4 8.4 17.6 638 1341 .476 626 1285 .487 1.27 .480
      39 C. Anthony, DEN 65 28.9 10.6 22.4 691 1453 .476 651 1304 .499 1.29 .489
      40 M. Ellis, GSW 77 16.5 6.2 13.1 480 1010 .475 441 867 .509 1.26 .495
      41 S. Abdur-Rahim, SAC 80 9.9 3.9 8.2 310 654 .474 307 634 .484 1.21 .476
      42 M. Camby, DEN 70 11.2 4.5 9.4 312 659 .473 312 657 .475 1.19 .473
      43 K. Martin, SAC 80 20.2 6.3 13.3 505 1067 .473 378 734 .515 1.52 .533
      44 D. Gooden, CLE 80 11.1 4.6 9.8 371 784 .473 370 778 .476 1.13 .474
      45 J. Johnson, ATL 57 25.0 9.4 20.0 536 1139 .471 417 827 .504 1.25 .523
      46 L. Odom, LAL 56 15.9 5.7 12.2 319 681 .468 265 499 .531 1.31 .508
      47 R. Hamilton, DET 75 19.8 7.3 15.6 547 1170 .468 503 1041 .483 1.27 .486
      48 R. Gomes, BOS 73 12.1 4.6 9.9 338 723 .468 322 681 .473 1.22 .479
      49 Z. Randolph, POR 68 23.6 8.8 18.9 600 1286 .467 586 1238 .473 1.25 .472
      50 A. Miller, DEN/PHI
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

        Hold on just to get this straight... you would trade Danny for a package centered around Boris Diaw?
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

          Neither Diaw or Deng is going to be able to be handed the ball and create offense. Their %'s are high because they either feed off of other players who actually do create offense (and in turn, draw in defenses) or through the assistance of screens and set plays.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

            You know what's a real bummer. Ike Diogu was really, really good at scoring in the low post.

            I guess he must have been as dumb as a rock.
            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

              Originally posted by Hicks
              Neither Diaw or Deng is going to be able to be handed the ball and create offense. Their %'s are high because they either feed off of other players who actually do create offense (and in turn, draw in defenses) or through the assistance of screens and set plays.
              Deng can certainly create a lot more offense than Danny.

              Diaw is not very good at anything.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                How do you see Deng creating?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                  Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                  I'm not all caught up in All-Star this and that. I just want a guy on our team we can throw it to, and he can find a way to score.

                  So you do want Jalen Rose?
                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    How do you see Deng creating?
                    Luol is a penetrator with a killer first step who pushes the issue off the bounce and gets to the rim with regularity. He's adept with both the crossover and spin dribble and uses those with a mix of quickness and deception to consistently beat defenders with the dribble and has the speed, power and ball control to split weak double teams and finish in traffic.

                    Danny remains primarily a jumpshooter who essentially finishes plays on the perimeter with either a catch-and-shoot release or using a head/ball fake and one or two repositioning dribbles to find space to get off the J. On the rare instances he does penetrate, it is usually set up by a shot-fake and occurs situationally when he catches his defender off balance or one a sloppy rotation. And if his first move is stymied, he generally doesn't follow it up with any secondary move and instead pulls up for the jumper or passes off. He lacks the ability -- or at least the desire -- to ever receive a pass, face up his man, knuckle up and go by him.

                    Luol, on the other hand, is very capable of being the guy you give the ball to at the top of key and run a four-down clear-out set at the end of the quarter and just say "score," ala Paul Pierce, Vince or Gilbert.

                    In terms of comparing their respective styles to other second tier perimeter guys, Luol plays more like, say, Richard Jefferson or Caron Butler, who like to force the issue and dribble into the paint, where as Danny plays more like Michael Redd or Rashard Lewis, who thrive in open space on the outside and focus on moving without the ball.

                    Luol is also fairly comfortable playing in the high or low post and has a few decent back-to-the-basket moves along with a good quick-reverse-pivot-face-up-and-go game.
                    Last edited by JayRedd; 10-16-2008, 07:04 PM.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      So you do want Jalen Rose?
                      Yeah.

                      I wasn't crazy about lots of Jalen's game or his mouth. But without the option of going to him whenever necessary to let him create and score, that team achieves a lot less than they did.
                      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Deng can certainly create a lot more offense than Danny.

                        Diaw is not very good at anything.
                        I think Diaw may have some real potential as a scorer.

                        I wouldn't trade Danny for him, but maybe someone else. The Suns need some vet backups on the perimeter. Maybe Marquis (an expiring) and filler might interest them?

                        This may be a risk worth looking at.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                          Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                          I think Diaw may have some real potential as a scorer.

                          I wouldn't trade Danny for him, but maybe someone else. The Suns need some vet backups on the perimeter. Maybe Marquis (an expiring) and filler might interest them?

                          This may be a risk worth looking at.
                          Boris Diaw...4 years at $9 million per year.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                            Originally posted by count55 View Post
                            Boris Diaw...4 years at $9 million per year.

                            I hear ya.

                            But I'd like your opinion on a bball level apart from the contract.

                            Diaw has the ability to score from any area of the court (except three). He could become that go-to guy in terms of ability. To date, it seems he hasn't developed the mentality to be that guy.

                            JOB has a rep for bringing guys like that into their own (Dun, Granger, etc.)

                            Thoughts?
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                              I think Diaw may have some real potential as a scorer.

                              I wouldn't trade Danny for him, but maybe someone else. The Suns need some vet backups on the perimeter. Maybe Marquis (an expiring) and filler might interest them?

                              This may be a risk worth looking at.
                              Exhibit A. horrendous contract
                              Exhibit B. he's a 6'8" SF
                              Exhibit C. can't play defense - surrenders too easily
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: ESPN Player Profiles are Good Reads...

                                Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                                I hear ya.

                                But I'd like your opinion on a bball level apart from the contract.

                                Diaw has the ability to score from any area of the court (except three). He could become that go-to guy in terms of ability. To date, it seems he hasn't developed the mentality to be that guy.

                                JOB has a rep for bringing guys like that into their own (Dun, Granger, etc.)

                                Thoughts?
                                I think Diaw is kind of a facilitator-type guy. Jack of all trades, master of none.

                                When I had posted my "Bet I won't refuse an offer for Jamaal Tinsley" thread on RealGM, one of the deals I went back and forth on (along with CableKC) was the one (well, ones) involving Diaw.

                                Contractually, he extends the Tinsley misery, but it's possible that I could be talked into believing that he could return to his peak performance with the Suns. His problem there is that he blossomed when Amare was out, but was unnecessary (or, more accurately, "in the way") when Amare returned. With Amare back, there was no need or the space for him to do what he does.

                                However, I also have long suspected that he was a hothouse flower. He gained a disproportionate amount of benefit from the Suns, their system, and playing with Steve Nash. I saw him play repeatedly in Atlanta. I didn't think he was under-utilized, or mis-utilized there. I just thought he was horrible. I've always been concerned that, outside of Phoenix, the clock would strike midnight, and he'd turn back into a pumpkin.

                                As to him being a "go-to-guy", I've seen nothing, at all, to indicate that he would even remotely have that potential. He's a role player with an ugly contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X