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

Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

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

  • #31
    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

    The Pacers are not going to trade Granger unless an unbelievable deal comes along, which is unlikely. Trading players when their value is greatest is only viable if you're stuck and/or not going anywhere. For example, the T-Wolves were stuck in salary cap hell with the big KG deal costing them 20+ million a year. They knew they were not going to be winning a championship any time soon and KG had been there for 10+ years. They were able to turn that into Jefferson, picks, etc. Is Jefferson the player KG is? Of course not. However, they helped their cap situation and are rebuilding.

    It's the same reason the Lakers don't trade Kobe, the Cavs won't trade LeBron or the Magic won't trade Howard. Granted, Danny isn't in the same league as the players mentioned. But what deal would the Pacers get that would make them better by dealing Granger?

    I'm not saying we wouldn't deal Granger or that I would object to a deal to send him elsewhere, but unless Danny came out and asked to be traded or got into a ton of trouble off the court, the chances of him being dealt are slim to none.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

      Well said, Dave.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

        After watching tonight's game, I'm wondering if Hibbert might end up becoming the low post threat we desperately need.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

          feels nice to not be the only pd member mocked for wanting granger gone. i too was calling for guys like jalen rose, jermaine o'neal, austin croshere, rick carlisle to be traded or fired. what's that famous ghandi quote..."first they ignore you. then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win."

          dunleavy has a more consistently higher ceiling than granger and is imo the more valuable player. funny how the pacers fans who don't think he's a franchise player and acknowledge he's nothing more than a #2 option on a decent team and #3 option on good team, call him "untouchable" or close to it. granger just isn't as good as most pacers fans think imo and it's the perception of granger that would net us a solid player in return.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

            trade granger for brandan wright and a future 1st and i'm satisfied

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

              As far as trading Granger, for those of you advocating and suggesting he should be dealt, I would love to hear some trade proposals! Simply saying Granger should be traded is fine, but as I mentioned before, would it make the Pacers any better?

              First, you're only going to find players in their rookie deals who would be suitable trade partners (cap wise). Otherwise, we'd have to include a larger contract to get a deal done.

              Secondly, what GM is going to trade a marquee player for Granger? Not to knock Granger, but he's probably more valuable to us than perhaps any incoming player (with few exceptions) would be. Granger's value is in the NBA second tier right now. I would put him on par with a Rudy Gay, Iguodola, Luol Deng, etc. That's not a bad place to be, but he's not a Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, etc. talent -- at least not yet.

              For those of you wanting a legit and dominant PF, let's see who is out there (on a rookie deal):

              1. Lamarcus Aldridge
              2. Al Horford
              3. David Lee
              4. Kevin Love
              5. Marvin Williams
              6. Jason Maxiell

              The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.

              My point is that as much as some of us want to trade Granger, it takes a willing team to take him and offer something that makes the Pacers better. Until that happens, a deal will not go down. I don't want to trade a dollar for a few quarters, a dime and a nickel simply for the sake of making a trade or getting value for Danny.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
                The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.
                Man, I'd be intrigued by a Granger for Love trade. A Hibbert/Love/Dunleavy frontcourt would be pretty interesting. Neither team would do it, though.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                  This whole thing is rediculous.

                  As I stated in another thread, I want someone to give me a reasonable trade scenario that another team would actually do, where he are going to trade Granger for our future franchise player. Im sick of all this abstract "lets trade granger to become a contender" crap. Give me something legit.

                  So far we have Brandon Wright and a future first, that is laughable.

                  Heres the most recent fantasy report on wright from NBA.com...

                  Update: Wright needs to be more aggressive and start "stepping up" if he is going to beat out rookie Anthony Randolph for the Warriors backup power forward spot, the Contra Costa Times reports.
                  Analysis: "We need Wright to be more aggressive, there's no question about it," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "He needs to show he's a good player. It's his second year; I expect more out of him. He's got to start stepping up." Wright scored four points in eight minutes in the Warriors preseason opener.


                  So our proven 20/6 guy, who has done nothing but improve not only every season, but seems to be improving all the time (like the end of last season where he was averaging something like 24 ppg when we made a run at the playoffs) we are trading that guy for some totally unproven second year player who has "potential"... Some guy who has been in the league a year and is having trouble beating out the totally raw Anthony Randolph for the backup spot, who is a rookie.

                  This is really the only bet we have in a scenario that involves trading granger, an all in gamble for a totally unproven player with lots of "potential". Jonathan bender had a lot of potential too, so does shawne williams. Its just simply not going to happen and would, most likely, be absolute folly.

                  Truth is, nobody is trading an established all-star caliber player to us for Danny Granger, at least not by himself. And the whole "Potential" thing is very dangerous waters.

                  There may be a legit argument that this team may get to a point where we need a certain caliber player to get to the next level and this team will essentially be "spinning its wheels"... fact is, we are not even there yet. There is nothing wrong with taking the wait and see approach, because the sort of deal being proposed here, is the one that more often than not blows up in your face, and actually sets you back even further.

                  In two seasons we will have huge expiring contracts, we will still have Granger, who will probably still be giving us something to the effect of 20/6 and getting paid a fair contract, two budding young players on rookie contracts, and future first round picks. If at THAT time it is looking as if this team will just be spinning its wheels, we would be in a MUCH better position to make a run at some dissatisfied perennial all star on a bad team somwhere. At that time you can package Granger, Rush, Murph-expiring, future first rounder for whoever if you think the team needs that "it" player to make a championship run. We might even find it may not be necessary... but it is silly and unrealistic to talk about this now. It will not happen, it should not happen... why don't we see what we have first?

                  Right now Danny is the best thing this struggling franchise has going, simply put, he will not be traded. For PR considerations alone.
                  Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 10-16-2008, 12:05 AM.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Man, I'd be intrigued by a Granger for Love trade. A Hibbert/Love/Dunleavy frontcourt would be pretty interesting. Neither team would do it, though.
                    That is a woefully slow front court. I like all those players individually, but not together.
                    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                    - ilive4sports

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                      Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                      So far we have Brandon Wright and a future first, that is laughable.

                      Heres the most recent fantasy report on wright from NBA.com...

                      Update: Wright needs to be more aggressive and start "stepping up" if he is going to beat out rookie Anthony Randolph for the Warriors backup power forward spot, the Contra Costa Times reports.
                      Analysis: "We need Wright to be more aggressive, there's no question about it," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "He needs to show he's a good player. It's his second year; I expect more out of him. He's got to start stepping up." Wright scored four points in eight minutes in the Warriors preseason opener.


                      So our proven 20/6 guy, who has done nothing but improve not only every season, but seems to be improving all the time (like the end of last season where he was averaging something like 24 ppg when we made a run at the playoffs) we are trading that guy for some totally unproven second year player who has "potential"... Some guy who has been in the league a year and is having trouble beating out the totally raw Anthony Randolph for the backup spot, who is a rookie.
                      If I'm the Pacers, I wouldn't trade Granger for Wright, but FTR, always take Nellie's comments during training camp with a grain of salt.

                      He said that to motivate Wright. The reality is Wright is actually the guy ahead of Randolph in the rotation and he's played pretty well overall this pre-season. The day after he said that, Wright responded with a strong game against the Blazers.

                      The next day Nellie all but came out and said that he was just trying to kick Wright in the pants, and that Wright needs to be consistent with that kind of effort because he can't use those motivational ploys every time since after awhile the reporters won't take him seriously and they'll never print that stuff.

                      Nellie at one point pimped Robert Kurz as a guy who rebounds well, plays hard and is one of his smartest players, or something to that effect. The reality is Kurz isn't even going to make the team. He's going to get cut in a matter of days.

                      Be very selective in what you read from Nellie in training camp. He's just BSing you most of the time, as he absolutely was doing in this case with Wright. FWIW, Anthony Randolph is the guy with more long range potential but he's just nowhere near ready right now, despite a strong summer league. The kid is 4 years younger than Brandon Rush (who is also a rookie).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                        Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post

                        1. Lamarcus Aldridge
                        2. Al Horford
                        3. David Lee
                        4. Kevin Love
                        5. Marvin Williams
                        6. Jason Maxiell

                        The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.
                        At this point in time, that pretty much says it. Those last 4 players are not worth trading Granger for. You would easily trade Granger for those first two guys, but their respective teams obviously wouldn't do that.

                        Pretty much, the only trades the Pacers would do are the ones other teams wouldn't, and vice versa. That's why Granger probably won't be going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                          Originally posted by d_c View Post
                          If I'm the Pacers, I wouldn't trade Granger for Wright, but FTR, always take Nellie's comments during training camp with a grain of salt.

                          He said that to motivate Wright. The reality is Wright is actually the guy ahead of Randolph in the rotation and he's played pretty well overall this pre-season. The day after he said that, Wright responded with a strong game against the Blazers.

                          The next day Nellie all but came out and said that he was just trying to kick Wright in the pants, and that Wright needs to be consistent with that kind of effort because he can't use those motivational ploys every time since after awhile the reporters won't take him seriously and they'll never print that stuff.

                          Nellie at one point pimped Robert Kurz as a guy who rebounds well, plays hard and is one of his smartest players, or something to that effect. The reality is Kurz isn't even going to make the team. He's going to get cut in a matter of days.

                          Be very selective in what you read from Nellie in training camp. He's just BSing you most of the time, as he absolutely was doing in this case with Wright. FWIW, Anthony Randolph is the guy with more long range potential but he's just nowhere near ready right now, despite a strong summer league. The kid is 4 years younger than Brandon Rush (who is also a rookie).
                          Point taken. I didn't really research it in depth. The larger point is that trading your best player for an unproven player is generally a bad idea. That little blurb happened to be the first thing I stumbled on when looking into wright.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post

                            I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return..

                            No ... you try and KEEP BOTH .. and if it absolutely HAD to be done , you can't just weigh the trade on who would get you the better return .
                            You ALSO have to weigh the damage that would be done to the fanbase , the team chemistry as well as the locker room morale

                            Right now , you have a young player in Granger, whom has been getting better and better EACH year , not to mention , becoming the face of the franchise.
                            You DO NOT trade him , and risk losing fans and the revenue they bring in to the Pacer's organization..

                            I realize the rationalization that some of you have about having 2 very good SFs on the same team. But , I don't see it becoming a problem.
                            It doesn't matter WHO starts really as far as DG and Dun. Because really, with both guys able to play multiple positions well, they are going to BOTH see the same amount of minutes per game as if they were starters.

                            Me personally , I like BOTH Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy Jr. about equally .. Besides, really liking their personalities and how they represent the Pacers, there are qualities in each of their games that are very important to this Pacers team.
                            Not to mention I REALLY Enjoy watching Dunleavy play for us.


                            This is the first time in a VERY long time, in which I have thoroughly enjoyed watching more than a few players on 1 team play and grow as a team, and as individuals.....


                            Out of our current roster ,the guys that I really love watching, are Hibbert , T.J. , Granger and Foster .. and yes .. even Diener is on my list since I am on the Dienermobile bandwagon .. heh

                            Although I am liking what I am seeing thus far from Jarrett Jack and think he brings alot off the bench for this team , his turnovers really make me cringe . I just hope he starts getting that under control, if he does, I think he will be great for this team. In my opinion , offensively as well as defensively , he is exactly what we wanted, and expected out of Quis, and haven't got ..
                            In my mind he is Quis' replacement..

                            Brandon Rush ... I like watching him on the court getting some experience , I just think he will take a little longer to get used to playing in the NBA. We should be patient with him , because once he does , we will start to see him come into his own and he will develop into the SG that we knew he could be when we drafted him..
                            I think that Hibbert will surpass Rush in his early development/transition into the NBA , but in time Brandon will be good.. It is nice being able to see our Rookies grow into good players before our very eyes... and this team develop comraderie and chemistry.




                            As far as Croshere, I enjoy seeing him as a veteran on the bench helping our young players out. Now whether he can step it up a few notches and really help this team on the court , is something we will have to wait and see... But I have always liked Cro ... on the court, when he is hot , he is on FIRE , but when he is cold.. he is FROZEN ... Cro is a good guy and a decent player , and at times a real offensive threat.. It's just his inconsistancy that keeps him from being a real good offensive player ..At times his Defense is decent enough at times, better than Murph , lol ,he just needs to be more agressive on the rebounds.. But I do enjoy seeing him come off the bench and lite it up from time to time...As I said before, his veteran presence is very much needed and welcomed..

                            Marquis Daniels............. well , last year I liked it when he was consistant and slashed his way to the basket , making some of the wildest looking lay-ups
                            that always seemed to go in... If he could bring that all the time , I would enjoy watching him more, and seeing him be a part of this team off the bench to provide a lil spark... But ever since he got minutes at the point , and got his little moniker said "quisy for the threezy" he TOTALLY went DOWNHILL .. His 3 point shooting really became abyssmal, he turned the ball over quite abit, he seemed to make alot of bonehead plays , and he stopped getting to the basket very often with his slashing in the lane moves.. often getting his pocket picked, and/or turning the ball over in the process of driving the lane..
                            At this point , I really don't like seeing him on the floor to be honest, except to give our guys a rest, injuries, or garbage minutes.. I don't really like seeing him taking minutes other guys could be getting... especially Rush , Diener, Graham . I guess I just soured on Quis after about January of last season..


                            I could go into the rest of our players, but I will save that for another time...

                            good day .. :-)
                            Last edited by Kemo; 10-16-2008, 03:14 AM.
                            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                              Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                              trade granger for brandan wright and a future 1st and i'm satisfied
                              Yeah and then as soon as Wright gets old like Granger (25) and proves to not be anywhere close to a franchise player you'll be clamoring to ship him out for some unproven 21 year old athlete. I bet alot of fans can get behind that revolving door mentality.

                              Is it seriously that hard for you to think of any other way for the Pacers to improve besides trading Granger and tanking. I bet you saw no future for the Pacers in '93 did you? (I know they never won a championship but that team in '98 would of ended the Bulls dynasty if they refs didn't swallow their whistles when Pippen manhandled Jackson all series)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?

                                I agree with Kemo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X