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.
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
-
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
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Ut oh:
http://aroyalpain.com/2009/06/24/mor...gs-and-pacers/
Soon as the Detroit/Sacramento deal news broke, another comes bouncing over the mountain. Now reports from WNDE 1260 in Indianapolis say the Pacers would like to move down in the draft, and have contacted the Kings about swapping the #13 pick for the #23 and #31 in a financial move.
More to come….Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Now, not sure I like this one... No I don't.Originally posted by docpaul View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
DX latest, nothing specific about us:
http://www.draftexpress.com/blog/Jon...he-Latest-3283
10:35 PM Update
-Sacramento has reportedly offered Detroit the #23 and #31 picks in exchange for the #15. The Kings may target DeJuan Blair at 15 if he’s available, while the Pistons like Toney Douglas and possibly DaJuan Summers.
-Does Atlanta unloading Acie Law for Jamal Crawford change their priorities in this draft? GM Rick Sund has supposedly told people that he will surely target a point guard, possibly Eric Maynor or Jeff Teague (assuming Lawson is gone at 13 or 17), but this might change things for him. Tyler Hansbrough and DeJuan Blair appear to be firmly in the mix here as well.
-Washington was able to save decent money in their trade with Minnesota, as well as bring in two players that appear to be more equipped to help them win right away than the #5 pick. At #32 they seem to be targeting a big man, although it’s not quite clear if they can find a quality player there. Some options include Taj Gibson (likely gone already), Ahmad Nivins and Victor Claver.
-There appears to be lots of interest in high 2nd round picks this year, with the going rate so far being at least what Miami paid Minnesota last year for the rights to Mario Chalmers—two future second round picks and 1.5 million dollars, and possibly more.
-The Cavs supposedly like Garrett Siler and are considering taking him with the #46 pick.
-It appears that New Orleans is leaning towards keeping their pick for now. Some of the options on their board supposedly include: DeJuan Blair, Eric Maynor, Jeff Teague, Taj Gibson and Toney Douglas.
-Two teams that may be looking to sell their late first round picks are Chicago and Memphis.
-Three teams that are looking to move into the first round are Miami, San Antonio and Houston. The Heat are supposedly looking at Taj Gibson and the Spurs are intrigued by Omri Casspi and Jonas Jerebko.
-Minnesota supposedly may not be done making moves, and could be looking to package some assets and move up even higher in the first round. Right now they seem to be dangling the #18 pick and Nikola Pekovic, possibly to Detroit sitting at 15. Gerald Henderson could very well be their target, as he’s likely gone one pick later by Chicago.
-A couple of teams are wondering where in the world is Rodrigue Beaubois, and why hasn’t he conducted even a single workout after the Eurocamp in Treviso? The answer is that Beaubois was supposedly just cleared to play last Friday, and after a few weeks on the shelf, his agent Bouna Ndiaye decided not to risk the excellent momentum he has going for him with some bad workouts. Beaubois supposedly feels good about where he stands with a number of teams in the late first round, including Portland, Oklahoma City, the Lakers and Cleveland.
10:00 PM Update
-Oklahoma City appears to have narrowed in on Ricky Rubio as their top choice with the #3 pick, at least according to what most NBA teams have on their board at the moment. For now, it seems like they will be keeping him. While we’re told that the Knicks will definitely explore a sign and trade with David Lee to acquire Rubio, it might take more to convince Oklahoma City to make that trade.
It will be interesting to see what the fallout is from Russell Westbrook’s camp after this, as he’s been extremely vocal publicly about not wanting to relinquish the full-time point guard duties, which is bound to happen eventually with Rubio around. Westbrook is currently scheduled to be on Jim Rome’s show tomorrow, so we may expect some fireworks.
-With Rubio locked up at three, we can probably move our attention to Sacramento, where Jonny Flynn and Tyreke Evans are clearly the top two candidates on the board.
If Jonny Flynn is the choice as expected, Tyreke Evans may be in for a slightly longer stay in the Green Room than he initially planned. James Harden would be the likely choice at Minnesota at 5, while logic suggests that Stephen Curry would be a much better fit in the backcourt than Evans at #6.
Evans did not work out for Golden State at #7—they are leaning towards Jordan Hill anyway—which means he would probably land at #8, where the Knicks would happily snatch him up.
That would slide Jrue Holiday down a slot, and in turn bump off James Johnson, since he is supposedly slightly Holiday on Toronto’s board. After that, it’s anyone’s guess.
-In this scenario, Milwaukee may have an interesting choice on their hands at #10. DeMar DeRozan was never supposed to get to their pick, but all of a sudden they find him right there for the picking, just a few days after trading away an extremely athletic wing player in Richard Jefferson. Do they swing for the fences on DeRozan’s upside, or will they stay true to their plan of drafting a point guard at all costs and reach for Jeff Teague?
-One of the tougher situations to read in this draft lies in New Jersey with the 11th pick. The Nets supposedly aren’t all that close to finalizing their draft board, although three of the players that will likely be on there will include Tyler Hansbrough, James Johnson and Terrence Williams, not necessarily in that order. It’s definitely possible that the Nets listen to one of the trade offers that comes their way, especially if Houston comes calling with Carl Landry.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I mean...I'd do that if we were getting Thompson with it, but I really doubt we would be. Or Hawes for that matter. If we got them it'd make sense...Would we be moving a player for Nocioni?...Or just picks? That'd suck.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Don't buy it.Originally posted by docpaul View Post
We brought in too many guys, to well regarded, & is so late, I call BULL****!"Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I don't get this part.Originally posted by docpaul View Post
I mean trading down 10 spot, only to save 600k in salary? seriously?Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Yeah the only way I see that is if we're cool with any one of Lawson Teague or Maynor and think we could get one that late. Then we'd have to get a big from Sacto I'd think. There have been rumors about them using Thompson to move up to #2, so they're at least open to it I guess. They'd jump 10 spots by using him. Maybe they like one of the wings or posts enough...draft a PG at 4 and IDK Blair or someone at 13? Beats me. But if we came away with Thompson and Maynor that'd be great IMO. I don't think it's likely though.Originally posted by Placebo View PostComment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
I hope we don't do that trade.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
Eric Maynor is TJ Ford but taller. Killer handles, laterally quick, loves to get his own score, doesn't have great vision and constantly goes to the corner dump-off pass if he gets shut down in the lane.
Again, vs George Mason, his team up by 20, he's already 6-9 in the first half and he just shoots and shoots and shoots. He takes an insultingly deep 3 that misses badly, comes right back with drive after drive for layup attempts, forcing his own action and getting reprimanded by his coach several times.
He played no defense, he drifts away from his man and is slow to recover to him when the ball swings that way, and he loves to stand and observe the game away from him.
Example - his man passes the ball, he drifts into the lane, the ball comes into the low post but he neither comes to help trap when he clearly could, nor does he do anything to deny the pass back out to his man. He also doesn't lock up a rebounder. He just stands there 4 feet from anyone, including his man, watching a guy go to the lane from the low post.
There's a lot of things I call that, but good defense isn't one of them. He couldn't care less on that end and is constantly waiting for the change of possession to get involved in the game again. It is frustrating to no end to watch.
I like his moves and I like him much more than Lawson, but he's got serious issues compared to Jennings and Holliday. I'd defintely want Blair before Maynor. Heck, for all his own issues I'd rather have the younger Teague to work with, and you could get him much lower in the draft.
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Trading 13 for those 2 picks? I like trading down, but that seems to be too far. And it DOES NOT SAVE YOU MONEY because you have 2 contracts instead of 1...unless you just dump 31. And if you flat out trade down 13 to 23 to save money on the rookie scale then you need to be fired.
The #31 contract isn't going to be any cheaper than the league min if you need to fill out the roster. There is virtually no savings in that move. That's someone trying to leverage the Pacers to get more in a trade. Or maybe it's the Pacers trying to get Chicago to come off their 2 picks.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/...terviews-3286/
Media day videos are up folks. I recommend TWill's interview, it's interesting
Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
Although I realize my opinion matters little, I do not want to end tomorrow night with any UNC players on the Pacers roster period. I prefer instead to keep the Dukies we have and seek outside-the-ACC help.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
HELL NO!Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
Less interest than Hansbrough. I have no idea what anyone is seeing in him, and for a good portion of the season few people were interested in him. Look at how Gibson is rated, and he was a much bigger impact athlete for USC. If any guy feels like a "rated high because I guess he should be" it's DeRozen.
The comparison to Evans and Harden make his high ranking a head scratcher. He doesn't seem even in the same ballpark. I've just been chalking him up to filler above the Pacers that helps push someone down. Everyone's been so certain that I haven't worried about him falling to the Pacers until the last 2 days.
LG - trust me, Henderson's pretty solid, so there are good ACC guys out there this year. Henderson's game (and again, Sam Young too) is that swing through move into a slasher's drive and he's pretty good at it. On top of that he likes to do that same swing right into a very smooth jump shot that's up quickly. Very classic NBA scoring moves, and great hops too. That's why I like him and Young so much.
I still have the Duke/NC game on Tivo as reference, looks great there. I will say that he stumbled more in the final month. In JAN/FEB he was on fire and that's when he really moved up the charts and got noticed.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-25-2009, 01:55 AM.Comment
-
Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center
As his #1 fan I must give full disclosure. Simmons podcast with Ford had some interesting comments on his attitude/behavior which is almost out of the Artest world. Not the temper thing, only the quirky side of things. Went around campus with a Barbie backpack for a long time, maybe never stopped for all I know.Originally posted by Placebo View Posthttp://www.draftexpress.com/article/...terviews-3286/
Media day videos are up folks. I recommend TWill's interview, it's interesting
He's a character, and that's where he gets his rep for "character issues". Not a troublemaker but instead another Pollard or Ronnie working at Circuit City. That doesn't scare me off at all as long as he's not an ahole.
BTW, great interview. I think he interviews exactly how he plays. He comes of smart despite not being scholastic. Unfortunately that was also Artest at times.Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-25-2009, 01:37 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment