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

chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

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

  • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

    Originally posted by count55 View Post
    So, does Stoudemire make us an immediate contender? By immediate contender, does this trade get us to the playoffs this year, or put us position to win a title within the next two or three?

    It had better, because this trade would add over $14mm dollars to our payroll next season. We would enter the summer with 9 players under contract being owed a total of $72.2mm dollars, which would almost certainly be over the luxury tax.

    We'd have to add six more players, probably all on the cheap, but all costing twice what their pay is due to the luxury tax.

    I'll do that, if a line up of Hibbert, Stoudemire, Granger, Dunleavy, and Ford, with Murphy, Diener, and perhaps Graham and McBob (we'd have to let Daniels and Jack walk) coming off the bench, is as good as Orlando, Boston, Cleveland, and the Lakers.

    If that is not the case, then why I am spending millions upon millions of additional dollars over the next two season and giving away what amounts to pieces of my future (Rush and two draft picks) to make this deal?
    It was just a quickly thrown-together hypothetical deal. No need to get your underwear in a bunch. I didn't realize our salary total would be quite so high. That could be a problem, although I suppose it depends on what the Simons are looking for. If they're only concerned with making money (or losing as little as possible) then you keep the team as it is - a mediocre pile of crap. Or even better, just sell the team and stick to building malls. However, if they have enough professional pride and want to bring in the Ws, it's a no-brainer - you make the move to bring in the All-NBA big man.


    Resign Jack for around $3.5M, then fill out the other 2-5 spots via a combination of resigning McRoberts/Graham and your two second round draft picks. Even better, you could probably exchange Tinsley's (finally) dwindling down two-year contract for a couple of serviceable roster fillers.

    Ten-man rotation....

    Ford/Diener
    Dunleavy/Jack
    Granger/Graham
    Amare/Murphy
    Foster/Hibbert

    Is that team a championship contender? I'm no psychic so I couldn't tell you. I do know that in terms of talent, they'd be amongst the upper-echelon of teams; 50+ wins on paper. How they gel together, only time would tell. It would be around $80M in total salary, a lot of money obvious. I'm willing to bet there would be an increase in attendance, an increase in nationally televised games, and most likely the playoffs (including this season), which would offset a bit of the extra spending.

    Again, it depends on how dedicated the Simons are to winning. Past history tells us they'll be willing to spend if they think it'll bring in a competitive team. With the current rough shape of the economy and the risk that the team wouldn't gel - I don't know. I'd do it, but then, it's not my money.

    Comment


    • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

      Originally posted by Quis View Post
      It was just a quickly thrown-together hypothetical deal. No need to get your underwear in a bunch. I didn't realize our salary total would be quite so high. That could be a problem, although I suppose it depends on what the Simons are looking for. If they're only concerned with making money (or losing as little as possible) then you keep the team as it is - a mediocre pile of crap. Or even better, just sell the team and stick to building malls. However, if they have enough professional pride and want to bring in the Ws, it's a no-brainer - you make the move to bring in the All-NBA big man.


      Resign Jack for around $3.5M, then fill out the other 2-5 spots via a combination of resigning McRoberts/Graham and your two second round draft picks. Even better, you could probably exchange Tinsley's (finally) dwindling down two-year contract for a couple of serviceable roster fillers.

      Ten-man rotation....

      Ford/Diener
      Dunleavy/Jack
      Granger/Graham
      Amare/Murphy
      Foster/Hibbert

      Is that team a championship contender? I'm no psychic so I couldn't tell you. I do know that in terms of talent, they'd be amongst the upper-echelon of teams; 50+ wins on paper. How they gel together, only time would tell. It would be around $80M in total salary, a lot of money obvious. I'm willing to bet there would be an increase in attendance, an increase in nationally televised games, and most likely the playoffs (including this season), which would offset a bit of the extra spending.

      Again, it depends on how dedicated the Simons are to winning. Past history tells us they'll be willing to spend if they think it'll bring in a competitive team. With the current rough shape of the economy and the risk that the team wouldn't gel - I don't know. I'd do it, but then, it's not my money.
      nice. I would still let jack go
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        So, does Stoudemire make us an immediate contender? By immediate contender, does this trade get us to the playoffs this year, or put us position to win a title within the next two or three?

        It had better, because this trade would add over $14mm dollars to our payroll next season. We would enter the summer with 9 players under contract being owed a total of $72.2mm dollars, which would almost certainly be over the luxury tax.

        We'd have to add six more players, probably all on the cheap, but all costing twice what their pay is due to the luxury tax.
        I'm glad that someone else is paying attention to my post that we would be WAY over the Luxury Tax and would still need to fill up the roster in 2009-2010 with at between 4-6 "End of the Bench / D-League" Players by using whatever is left of the MLE that we can spend.

        How much more could we spend to get those Players?

        Even if we would be over the Luxury Tax.....it sounds like we would only have the full MLE to spend between 4 ( the minimum # of players we would have to get ) to 6 players.

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        I'll do that, if a line up of Hibbert, Stoudemire, Granger, Dunleavy, and Ford, with Murphy, Diener, and perhaps Graham and McBob (we'd have to let Daniels and Jack walk) coming off the bench, is as good as Orlando, Boston, Cleveland, and the Lakers.

        If that is not the case, then why I am spending millions upon millions of additional dollars over the next two season and giving away what amounts to pieces of my future (Rush and two draft picks) to make this deal?
        To be fair....if I were to look at this as a marketing move to simply put butts in seats while trying to get us back to give us the best chance to return us to the Playoffs ONLY for the next 2 seasons....but probably not get farther then the 2nd round....I would have no problem with it. But as you say, I don't think that it's a Championship Caliber team. The problem is that I don't think that the Simons would want to pay the Luxury Tax if it didn't guarantee them ( at least ) a long Playoff run.

        There is one thing that hasn't been discussed.....it's how JO'B would use Amare IF we ever got him. I have no clue how he effectively he would use a true Low-Post banger that can rebound, score in the Low-Post and block as many ( if not more ) shots then Foster, Murphy and Rasho combined. I could totally see Amare be used much like Nellie uses Biedrins....the clean-up guy that sits in the paint, doing his best to defend the paint where he wouldn't be a primary focus of the offense and would do most of his scoring off of the many missed shots that we usually give up.
        Last edited by CableKC; 02-06-2009, 01:07 PM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

          Originally posted by Franchise55 View Post
          If a deal were to go down, I'm fairly certain Bird would talk to Amare about how he feels being a Pacer and if he would be up for signing an extension before the deal goes down.
          To me, this is essential. If we put (or have) a serious trade for Amare on the table, Larry and Morway need to conduct a job interview, in person. Would Amare "fit" with the team, as a teammate and from a PR standpoint? Would he sign an extension? Would he buy into the program?

          If all that is affirmative, then we should make a serious effort to get him. If not, forget it.

          As to what to offer, there have been plenty of good suggestions. Make a serious, but not too generous, offer. They can only say 'no'. And if they so 'no', then too bad and move on.

          Personally, I think we need to include Murphy for salary matching and cap management purposes. After that, offer from among Ford, Daniels, Foster, Rasho, Maceo, McRoberts, etc. I'd like to keep Roy and Rush and Dunleavy. And Danny of course. But if we had to give one up, then Rush. I would offer to swap '09 draft picks only; that should be enough enticement because even with Amare, I doubt we make the playoffs this year and so they get a Lottery ticket. Obviously need to keep the salary cap under control. I'd love to get Barbosa and T.J. in the deal. And then get a new coach who would get this team to play defense.

          Comment


          • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            To be fair....if I were to look at this as a marketing move to simply put butts in seats while trying to get us back to the Playoffs for the next 2 seasons.....but probably not get farther then the 2nd round....while having the Owners pay for the luxury Tax....I would have no problem with it. The problem is that I don't think that the Simons would want to pay the Luxury Tax if it didn't guarantee them ( at least ) a long Playoff run.
            Isn't that better than being low in the standings? I consider that progress.

            Comment


            • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

              If the Suns would go for an Amare deal that included either Murphy or Tinsley, then that's an easy yes from my point of view. I don't think they would, especially Jamaal.

              Comment


              • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                I would consider a Rush/Rasho/Quis/2010 1st for Amare deal. But we would have to also take into consideration that our defense would be no better, and in fact may even get worse. We'd just become Phoenix-lite. But that may be good enough for the last two years on Amare's contract to get the fans back in.

                Comment


                • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                  Originally posted by Shade View Post
                  I would consider a Rush/Rasho/Quis/2010 1st for Amare deal. But we would have to also take into consideration that our defense would be no better, and in fact may even get worse. We'd just become Phoenix-lite. But that may be good enough for the last two years on Amare's contract to get the fans back in.
                  Once we get some more fans back, the team will make a little more money. It won't be too much of a financial burden at that time to make a move (i.e. Amare), if those changes are expected.

                  Ultimately, every trade is a risk. All we can do is hope that a good scenario like this happens.

                  Comment


                  • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                    Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                    Isn't that better than being low in the standings? I consider that progress.
                    Progress for the 2009-2010 season....but what happens after that? We go back to where we are now with a core of Ford/Granger/Dunleavy/Murphy/Foster/Hibbert with no draft picks.

                    In the end, I think there is a decent payoff to try to get Amare...but the cost is going to outweigh the benefits in the long run.

                    If I were to completely ignore how much Luxury Tax the Simon's would have to pay for the best roster that I think that we could come up with for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 season:

                    Ford/Diener
                    Dunleavy/Jack
                    Granger/Graham
                    Murphy/Foster/McRoberts
                    Amare/Hibbert

                    Along with 2 more "end of the bench" players that are very cheap....I agree that it could get us into the 2nd round....but from there...it's arguable whether we could get into the Conference Finals or not.

                    The problem is that there would be little chance that we could afford Amare in the 2010-2011 season.....so this would be an "all or nothing" run for the next 2 seasons.

                    Besides....if there is a reason why this wouldn't happen at all is due to financial reasons.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 02-06-2009, 01:36 PM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                      i'd only want stoudemire if they took murphy and his contract off of us

                      Comment


                      • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                        Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                        Once we get some more fans back, the team will make a little more money. It won't be too much of a financial burden at that time to make a move (i.e. Amare), if those changes are expected.

                        Ultimately, every trade is a risk. All we can do is hope that a good scenario like this happens.
                        Let's focus on the actual $$$ value. It sounds like since we would likely be at $72 mil with 8 Active Players ( not including Tinsley ).

                        Ford/Dunleavy/Granger/Murphy/Foster/Hibbert/Diener/Amare

                        The most ( I think ) that we can spend is the full MLE for ( at least ) 5 Players to get us back up to 13 players.

                        count55, since you are WAYYYY better at calculating costs for the likely 2009-2010 SalaryCap, what would the cost to pay for all this?

                        I'm guessing double the cost of the full MLE?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                          Originally posted by mrknowname View Post
                          i'd only want stoudemire if they took murphy and his contract off of us
                          I would too....but why would the Suns take on Murphy?

                          If Amare was moved....they would be in rebuilding mode while looking for the best players in return along with Player Contracts that wouldn't hinder them financially for the next 2 season when a "bumper crop" of top tier FAs come on the Market. Taking on Murphy or Dunleavy would effectively negate any SalaryCap Flexibility.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I would too....but why would the Suns take on Murphy?

                            If Amare was moved....they would be in rebuilding mode while looking for the best players in return along with Player Contracts that wouldn't hinder them financially for the next 2 season when a "bumper crop" of top tier FAs come on the Market. Taking on Murphy or Dunleavy would effectively negate any SalaryCap Flexibility.
                            The Suns have increased Shaq's role with the team and allegedly have made Nash off limits in trades. Doesn't sound like a rebuilding team to me. More like a team trying to reshuffle the deck a little bit via moving an unhappy player.

                            Comment


                            • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                              An emotion-based response: Talk of trading Rush and Hibbert, let alone Granger, for Stoudamire -- or anyone right now, really -- rubs me the wrong way. Here's a great question (that's also appropriate to throw out during dates of high potential) that applies to how I'm feeling:

                              What's the sexiest word in the English language?

                              anticipation

                              My point is not about not wanting to win, it's about wanting to win the right way, with the right kind of people, in the right time frame. Beyond Cable's and Count's admonitions about salaries, I want to grow attached to our players, see them grow and develop ... and EARN the right to compete for a championship. That time simply has not yet come, with or without Stoudamire. But if we can make a trade that will enhance our feeling of growth and potential for next year and beyond, then whether we make the playoffs this year becomes almost inconsequential.

                              To that end, I put high value on Rush, Hibbert, certainly Granger, and even our #1 pick. (Picks??) Our frustrations now will bear fruit in time; then we will love our team AND their potential to win it all!


                              "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                              - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                              Comment


                              • Re: chad ford said this about the Pacers/Amare in his chat today...

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                I would too....but why would the Suns take on Murphy?

                                If Amare was moved....they would be in rebuilding mode while looking for the best players in return along with Player Contracts that wouldn't hinder them financially for the next 2 season when a "bumper crop" of top tier FAs come on the Market. Taking on Murphy or Dunleavy would effectively negate any SalaryCap Flexibility.

                                well they wouldn't.

                                plus there are other teams that can come up with a better off than us anyways

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X