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

Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

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

  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    It's official, Chad Ford is the worst mock draft "expert" out there.

    I'll put 1K down against him right now that Hasborough AND Daye don't both get drafted before DeJuan Blair. I mean seriously, and this he had up on 6/3??? Is he even paying the least bit of attention.

    No one and I mean no one thinks of Blair as a lesser PF prospect than Daye and PsychoT. Ford needs to stop doing these things, and people need to stop getting amped up over his March draft machine which is just a train wreck. Idea, fine; actual info he has, terrible.
    NBA.com has, I quote, "The Consensus Mock Draft is a compilation of the best mock drafts around the web." They have Ford's draft among them.

    Looking them over I don't agree with any of them and none of them really agreed with each other. This year just seems more of a crap shoot then any other draft in recent memory.

    http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...sus/index.html

    DraftExpress
    06.11
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.James Harden
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Ricky Rubio
    5.Stephen Curry
    6.Tyreke Evans
    7.Jonny Flynn
    8.Jrue Holiday
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Jordan Hill
    11.Brandon Jennings
    12.Gerald Henderson
    13.DeJuan Blair
    14.James Johnson
    ESPN.com
    06.03
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Hasheem Thabeet
    3.Ricky Rubio
    4.Tyreke Evans
    5.James Harden
    6.Stephen Curry
    7.Jrue Holiday
    8.Jonny Flynn
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Jordan Hill
    11.Tyler Hansbrough
    12.Gerald Henderson
    13.Austin Daye
    14.Brandon Jennings
    SI.com
    06.10
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.James Harden
    4.Stephen Curry
    5.Jordan Hill
    6.Hasheem Thabeet
    7.Tyreke Evans
    8.Jrue Holiday
    9.Brandon Jennings
    10.Jonny Flynn
    11.Demar DeRozan
    12.DeJuan Blair
    13.Gerald Henderson
    14.Ty Lawson
    CollegeHoops.net
    05.19
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Jordan Hill
    5.Brandon Jennings
    6.James Harden
    7.Earl Clark
    8.Ty Lawson
    9.Gerald Henderson
    10.DeMar DeRozan
    11.James Johnson
    12.Jeff Teague
    13.Jonny Flynn
    14.Tyreke Evans
    Inside Hoops
    06.10
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Hasheem Thabeet
    3.Ricky Rubio
    4.Stephen Curry
    5.James Harden
    6.Demar DeRozan
    7.Jonny Flynn
    8.Jordan Hill
    9.Tyreke Evans
    10.DeJuan Blair
    11.James Johnson
    12.Earl Clark
    13.Tyler Hansbrough
    14.Brandon Jennings
    SBNation
    05.21
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Brandon Jennings
    5.James Harden
    6.Demar DeRozan
    7.Tyreke Evans
    8.Stephen Curry
    9.Gerald Henderson
    10.Jordan Hill
    11.DeJuan Blair
    12.Jrue Holiday
    13.Jonny Flynn
    14.Earl Clark
    NBC Sports
    06.14
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Hasheem Thabeet
    3.James Harden
    4.Ricky Rubio
    5.Jordan Hill
    6.Stephen Curry
    7.Jrue Holiday
    8.Tyreke Evans
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Brandon Jennings
    11.DeJuan Blair
    12.Gerald Henderson
    13.Jonny Flynn
    14.Ty Lawson
    RealGM
    06.02
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Jrue Holiday
    5.Jordan Hill
    6.James Harden
    7.Tyreke Evans
    8.Stephen Curry
    9.Brandon Jennings
    10.Jonny Flynn
    11.Earl Clark
    12.Demar DeRozan
    13.DeJuan Blair
    14.Jeff Teague
    HoopsWorld
    06.12
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Hasheem Thabeet
    3.Ricky Rubio
    4.Tyreke Evans
    5.James Harden
    6.Jonny Flynn
    7.Jrue Holiday
    8.Stephen Curry
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Jordan Hill
    11.DeJuan Blair
    12.Austin Daye
    13.Earl Clark
    /14.B.J. Mullens
    ProBasketballNews
    (1) | 6.06
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Jordan Hill
    5.James Harden
    6.Jrue Holiday
    7.Tyreke Evans
    8.Brandon Jennings
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Jonny Flynn
    11.DeJuan Blair
    12.James Johnson
    13.Gerald Henderson
    14.Stephen Curry
    ProBasketballNews
    (2) | 05.20
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Hasheem Thabeet
    3.Jordan Hill
    4.Ricky Rubio
    5.Brandon Jennings
    6.James Harden
    7.Tyreke Evans
    8.James Johnson
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Ty Lawson
    11.Stephen Curry
    12.Jrue Holiday
    13.DeJuan Blair
    14.Earl Clark
    Sporting News
    06.02
    1.Blake Griffin
    2.Ricky Rubio
    3.Hasheem Thabeet
    4.Jordan Hill
    5.Tyreke Evans
    6.Brandon Jennings
    7.Jrue Holiday
    8.James Harden
    9.Demar DeRozan
    10.Jonny Flynn
    11.DeJuan Blair
    12.Stephen Curry
    13.Gerald Henderson
    14.Chase Budinger

    Comment


    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

      Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
      This is where draft positioning gets pretty interesting. Here's what I'm thinking on the issue right now.

      I believe there is a 99% chance that these 7 players will be picked in the top 9:

      Griffen, Thabeet, Harden, Rubio, Curry, Derozan, Evans

      The next 2 slots will be filled by 2 of the following 3 players: Holiday, Hill, Jennings.

      So, Milwaukee's sitting at #10 with one of those 3 guys on the board. I think they'd take Hill or Holiday, but I can't see them taking Jennings (I don't think that he and Skiles could co-exist). However, Milwaukee's rumored to be in love with Flynn, and that seems like a pretty good fit to me. I could see them passing on any of those guys for Flynn or maybe even Blair.

      The next 2 picks are New Jersey and Charlotte. I don't think either team is going to take a PG. The implication is that it's possible that either Holiday or Jennings could fall to #13. Holiday worked out in Indy yesterday and Jennings might come later this week.

      I think that Blair, J. Johnson, Henderson, and Clark all have to be strongly in the mix for NJ and Charlotte.
      Interesting analysis. I just hope that Flynn gets drafted before 13. If that happens then someone good should drop.

      Comment


      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

        Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
        This is where draft positioning gets pretty interesting. Here's what I'm thinking on the issue right now.

        I believe there is a 99% chance that these 7 players will be picked in the top 9:

        Griffen, Thabeet, Harden, Rubio, Curry, Derozan, Evans

        The next 2 slots will be filled by 2 of the following 3 players: Holiday, Hill, Jennings.

        So, Milwaukee's sitting at #10 with one of those 3 guys on the board. I think they'd take Hill or Holiday, but I can't see them taking Jennings (I don't think that he and Skiles could co-exist). However, Milwaukee's rumored to be in love with Flynn, and that seems like a pretty good fit to me. I could see them passing on any of those guys for Flynn or maybe even Blair.

        The next 2 picks are New Jersey and Charlotte. I don't think either team is going to take a PG. The implication is that it's possible that either Holiday or Jennings could fall to #13. Holiday worked out in Indy yesterday and Jennings might come later this week.

        I think that Blair, J. Johnson, Henderson, and Clark all have to be strongly in the mix for NJ and Charlotte.
        Good job on breaking it down.

        If I had a choice I think Holiday is less of a risk than say Jennings which could be the reason why Jennings falls to us.

        So does Bird take a pf over a pg even though it seems that a pg will be the best player availiable with the most upside?
        Last edited by Gamble1; 06-16-2009, 11:07 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          I'd guess Sacto at this point. Again, he's this year's Westbrook. W'brook was not tracking ahead of Bayless or anywhere near top 5 till right before the draft, and even then I recall him still slotting behind Bayless.
          I think Sacramento is leaning toward taking Jennings over Holiday at this point.

          Comment


          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

            Originally posted by count55 View Post
            Rubio and Evans will likely be gone before 7, but Curry probably won't, and Holiday just worked out for us...interested in d_c's take.
            I just read Givony's entire article and there is just a lot of bunk there.

            He mentioned the Warriors are under the gun to win immediately...or else. Or else what? The owner is going to sell the team? LOL.

            He also mentioned Larry Riley being on a short leash and has 1 year to turn things around. He doesn't even know Riley's position in the organization. Riley is more of just a figurehead to make it look like Nellie only coaches and doesn't make personnel decisions, which isn't true. All Riley does in reality is make Nellie coffee and file some scouting reports. He's just Nellie's buddy who happens to be along for the ride. He's not the real decision maker.

            Then he mentioned the Warriors trying everything to bring back Baron Davis this summer. File that under not happening. Just some pretty horrible speculation by Givony there.

            Comment


            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              I think Sacramento is leaning toward taking Jennings over Holiday at this point.
              From the report I read about the Flynn, Holiday, Jennings workout (either ESPN or Draftexpress) it sounds like they might actually be considering Flynn.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                From the report I read about the Flynn, Holiday, Jennings workout (either ESPN or Draftexpress) it sounds like they might actually be considering Flynn.
                I might explode out of happiness if that happens.

                Comment


                • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  From the report I read about the Flynn, Holiday, Jennings workout (either ESPN or Draftexpress) it sounds like they might actually be considering Flynn.
                  I would be shocked. I think Flynn is getting way overhyped because he speaks well and is vocal on the court. Those are great traits, but I think there will be a number of better PGs in this draft. JMO.

                  That said, of course I hope they take Flynn! More good players for us!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                    You gentlemen really see a J Bayless like drop for Hill? This draft is guard strong. It is the old best player available vs Need. I do not see Hill dropping past New Jersey or Charlotte.

                    I also do not believe in tanking for a better pick. Losing while gaining us a few spots would have set the wrong precedent for Rush & Hibbert.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      It's official, Chad Ford is the worst mock draft "expert" out there.

                      I'll put 1K down against him right now that Hasborough AND Daye don't both get drafted before DeJuan Blair. I mean seriously, and this he had up on 6/3??? Is he even paying the least bit of attention.

                      No one and I mean no one thinks of Blair as a lesser PF prospect than Daye and PsychoT. Ford needs to stop doing these things, and people need to stop getting amped up over his March draft machine which is just a train wreck. Idea, fine; actual info he has, terrible.
                      I'm guessing that he's putting a lot of credence to those reports about Blair's medical report on his legs. With Hansborough being the next best PF prospect and some ( what I guess is "mis" ) information from his "sources", I'm guessing that he's drawing the conclusion that the 3rd ( or 4th...if you think that Clark is better ) PF is dropping and teams looking for the "next" best PF ( Hansborough ) is moving up....which makes sense. If a Team is intersted in a PF and a prospect begins to fall, the next best prospect moves up in the rankings. This, of course, assumes that one believes these "sources".

                      As suggested, I wouldn't be surprised if teams want him to drop to the late teens are the ones feeding Ford these "negative" information. For me, after reading some of the comments here on PD about Blair....I'm beginning to think that he would be a solid pickup in the later teens as well...but not at 13.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                        here is a site that has 88 mock drafts, shown by date they were updated.

                        http://walterfootball.com/nbadraftdata.php

                        Comment


                        • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                          Originally posted by ESutt7 View Post
                          Jamison would be a nice fit in Cleveland. Still wouldn't have someone to guard Dwight, but they'd match up a lot better on the perimeter.
                          If the Cavs had the choice of going with Jamison and Shaq, I'd go with Shaq. In a Half court offense, Shaq would be more affective....he would match up well with Dwight and ( most notably ) he has an expiring Contract instead of a huge long-term contract like Jamison does.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            If the Cavs had the choice of going with Jamison and Shaq, I'd go with Shaq. In a Half court offense, Shaq would be more affective....he would match up well with Dwight and ( most notably ) he has an expiring Contract instead of a huge long-term contract like Jamison does.
                            I was thinking the same thing. Although Jamison is more of a long term commitment to winning than Shaq. That jester alone could help convince LeBron to stay but if I was aiming to win a finals I would want to have Shaq.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              If the Cavs had the choice of going with Jamison and Shaq, I'd go with Shaq. In a Half court offense, Shaq would be more affective....he would match up well with Dwight and ( most notably ) he has an expiring Contract instead of a huge long-term contract like Jamison does.
                              Agreed, and the contract part is the big reason why. Though Shaq does want a 2 year extension. I would hope Shaq would agree to take a lot less money to stay with LBJ and Cleveland that would give the Cavs enough to sign another marquee guy.

                              But if Shaq stays healthy next season, then he can guard Dwight one on one better than most. The Cavs need to sign a good defensive swingman that has height, playing the Ariza role for them. That way against both Boston and Orlando they match up better defensively than they did this year. So basically trade nothing for Shaq, sign a good wing with the MLE or something, resign Varejeo...see what happens. I'd imagine that'd make LeBron a happy camper and get them a ring or very close to it. And I'm one that has always believe LeBron will resign in Cleveland.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Official 2009 NBA Draft Recruiting Center

                                I hope we take Blair with our number 1 pick. Hes already lost 20 lbs since Pitts season ended. He is undersized for a PF, but I think this is the best pick.

                                This draft is loaded with PG talent in my opinion. So we could trade up to late in the first to draft one or draft someone like AJ Price in the second round. May never be a starter but could be a good backup.

                                If we do take a PG with our number 1 I hope we trade down and take Lawson. He showed what a leader he could be in the tournament and North Carolina players usually adapt well to the pro game.
                                Last edited by dannygranger; 06-16-2009, 12:27 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X