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...

    oh what the hell. I'd be willing to deal any package of players/picks on the roster for amare.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Quis View Post
      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.
      Even if they aren't rebuilding, I don't get the sense that they are looking to add any more salary that lasts beyond the 2009-2010 season....specifically when Shaq comes off the books.
      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
        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?
        Without boring everybody with all the math, between today and the end of next season, the deal as proposed (without moving a Murph, Foster, Tinsley, or Dunleavy), would cost the Pacers in three areas: additional salaries, additional taxes, and lost share of the tax payout that goes the teams below the tax. Rough estimations (that are arguably conservative) would be:

        Additional Salaries: $12.5mm
        Additional Tax: $6.5mm
        Lost Tax Rebate: $6.0mm

        Total incremental cash out estimated at $25.0mm.

        This would be offset by additional gate receipts, additional merchandising, and some local advertising revenue. The biggest chunk would be in gate receipts. However, even assuming jumping up about 5,000 tickets per night, or basically selling out, and making the second round of the playoffs in both years would only bring us about $19 to $20mm in add'l net revenues. The merchandising and advertising revenue are relatively limited revenue streams.

        This does not even contemplate the additional operating expenses that would be incurred while playing in the playoffs.

        The financials of the deal could, theoretically, put the Pacers at more risk of moving, despite the increased attendance and success on the floor.

        This is what I've been talking about regarding how henky the business model is.

        From 1999 through 2008, the Indiana Pacers won 55% of their games, made 8 playoff appearances, three conference finals appearances, and one NBA finals appearance. According to Forbes, they posted an operating loss of $13 million.

        Over the same period of time, the Los Angeles Clippers won only 38% of their games and made only one playoff appearance. (In fact, they had only one winning season.) However, the same Forbes edition reports $117 million in Operating Profits for the Clips.

        I recognize that it is possible, if not likely, that the Pacers would need to lose money to win games. The Simons, I'm sure, are well aware of this phenomenon. However, I'm saying that the Pacers cannot afford to use only picks, expirings and youth to bring back Stoudemire unless it was a serious and marginally low-risk grab for an immediate title.

        Risks are necessary, but the likely return on that type of move does not warrant the damage that it is almost certain to wreak.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
          oh what the hell. I'd be willing to deal any package of players/picks on the roster for amare.
          Yeah man,
          I think some people here would not be satisfied with any trade unless it was Kobe, Lebron or Dwight Howard. Amare would be a fantastic pick up for the team, anyone but Granger.. That's not just because of talent but because Danny is the face of the team. I want them to keep him. Everyone else can go.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
            Yeah man,
            I think some people here would not be satisfied with any trade unless it was Kobe, Lebron or Dwight Howard. Amare would be a fantastic pick up for the team, anyone but Granger.. That's not just because of talent but because Danny is the face of the team. I want them to keep him. Everyone else can go.
            I would love to have a talent like Amare. I wouldn't trade Granger for him, not because Granger's better, but because swapping the two would leave us largely in the same position.

            However, I do think you have to be prudent about some of the packages because, if done the wrong way, a deal for Amare, while it would improve us, would essentially leave us not good enough to contend and without any assets to get better. All the while, it could end up being financial suicide.

            People often throw around the fear that we are going to get locked into mediocrity, but they fail to recognize that this move could just lock us into "OK, but not good enough" for a short period of time before bringing us back to the same precipice we've faced over the last couple of years.

            Comment


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

              Didn't know if you guys saw this or this is a repost:

              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...cenario-090207

              Who wants Amare? How about Shaq?Comment Email Print By Chad Ford
              ESPN.com




              Trade proposals for Amare Stoudemire and Shaq are now welcome in Phoenix.
              Word has spread like wildfire throughout the league the past 48 hours that the Phoenix Suns are abandoning ship.

              With the financial crisis rising and with the Suns sinking in the West, it sounds as if owner Robert Sarver has had enough of his team's underachievement and its $75 million payroll. The general manager for another team said the Suns' goal in the next two weeks before the trade deadline was to clear $40 million off the 2009-10 payroll.



              A Suns source insists, however, that the primary goal is to get under the luxury tax threshold next season. Current projections have the luxury tax threshold at $68 to $69 million. So the Suns need to cut just one big salary to get under that and still have room to sign their 2009 draft pick.



              Multiple GMs around the league report talking to Suns GM Steve Kerr and/or assistant GM David Griffin about deals involving virtually everyone on the Phoenix roster not named Steve Nash.



              According to sources that have had direct talks with the Suns, the team is looking at every option on the table that brings back cap relief and young players or draft picks. So far, Phoenix has refused to consider much else, shutting down a number of inquiries that would bring players without expiring contracts back to the Suns.



              At the center of the trade storm is Amare Stoudemire, the starting power forward for the Western Conference All-Stars. Not far behind is Shaquille O'Neal, also a Western Conference All-Star. Even recently acquired Jason Richardson has been discussed, according to another GM who has had talks with the Suns.



              The feeding frenzy that this has caused in the league is extraordinary. It's not often All-Star bigs are on the market this time of year. However, it's also terrible timing for the Suns. The economic situation is causing a number of owners to pause before agreeing to trade expiring contracts for long-term ones.

              Even more problematic for the Suns is the current perception of Stoudemire around the league. A year ago, teams would have been willing to give up young All-Stars for the 26-year-old, super-athletic big man. Now? With Stoudemire playing indifferently, and with concerns about his impending free agency in the summer of 2010, a number of GMs are asking, "Is he worth the trouble?"



              The Suns know it. I've been told that they know they won't be able to get equal talent in return. At this point, they're content with cap relief and a young player who could eventually blossom down the road.



              Shaq is an even harder sell. Yes, he's having an incredible year for a 36-year-old center. However, most of the GMs I spoke with are concerned about his focus and motivation if he were traded again -- especially if he's not heading to a Finals contender.



              The recently acquired Richardson has some value, but the two years at $28 million total on his contract is an obstacle. So is a rule that prohibits the Suns from aggregating him with other players in a trade before the trade deadline. Other players, such as Leandro Barbosa, also have been mentioned in talks, although I'm told Phoenix would prefer to hang on to Barbosa.



              So what can the Suns pull off before the trade deadline? The answer might shock and dismay Suns fans. Yes, they'll be able to get teams to pony up expiring contracts for Stoudemire and even Shaq, but the Suns shouldn't expect a lot of young talent to be made available. The risks for teams acquiring Shaq or Stoudemire are just too high.



              Here's a look at a number of packages that appear to fit the parameters of what the Suns are looking for. Let me stress that I'm not saying that all these deals are on the table. But this likely is what the Suns will have to choose from:




              Potential trades for Amare


              NETS: Yi Jianlian, Stromile Swift, Ryan Anderson, Jarvis Hayes and a No. 1 pick


              Why they'd do it: The Nets could be immediate contenders again with a team of Devin Harris, Vince Carter, Brook Lopez and Amare. And if they end up finding a new home for Vince Carter at the trade deadline or this summer (word is the Spurs are interested), the Nets might have the opportunity in 2010 to offer LeBron James a chance to play with Harris, Amare and Lopez.



              The Suns would get a young big with a bright future in Yi plus another first-round pick -- either the Nets' pick this year, or the one Dallas owes the Nets in 2010. They would also clear about $12 million off their cap next year when Swift, Ager and Hayes all come off the books.



              Why they wouldn't: It's hard to imagine that New Jersey wouldn't do it. Amare can come off the books in 2010, meaning that New Jersey could still pursue LeBron and other free agents then, even if they make the trade. In the meantime, they would be relevant again.



              For the Suns, the question would be, is this enough to get for Amare? Yi is a talent and the pick would be nice. But is there a better trade to be made?


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




              BULLS: Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefolosha, Cedric Simmons and Drew Gooden



              Why they'd do it: For the Bulls, this is likely a no-brainer. They've needed a frontcourt presence like Amare for years. Although he's not the classic low-post banger or rebounder that would be ideal for Chicago, he's great in the open floor and looks like a perfect complement to Derrick Rose and Luol Deng.

              For the Suns, this trade would save them nearly $9 million next season and give them two young players with potential. Although neither Thomas nor Sefolosha has shined the way the Bulls had envisoned when they drafted them, their defensive abilities and athleticism would be welcome in Phoenix.



              Why they wouldn't: Coach Vinny Del Negro spent several years in the Phoenix front office before taking the job in Chicago. He knows Amare and might be steering GM John Paxson away from acquiring him.

              This deal wouldn't give the Suns much in the way of cap savings. They might want to deal with a team that can save them more money down the road.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              KNICKS: David Lee, Nate Robinson and Stephon Marbury


              Why they'd do it: The Knicks want to lure LeBron to New York and have planned on trying to add two superstars in the summer of 2010. If they can get one now … why not do it? Adding Stoudemire to the mix would electrify the fan base in New York, and you know Mike D'Antoni knows how to get the best out of Amare. To make this deal work under the cap, the Suns would have to include Barbosa. But no worries, the Knicks need guards, too.



              Lee is the type of player Kerr is looking for. He rebounds, plays defense, hustles on every play and is still young. Obviously, the Suns would waive Marbury quickly to end his second stop in Phoenix and be able to drop $10-12 million in payroll next summer.



              Why they wouldn't: If the Knicks add Barbosa and Stoudemire, they would have room to pursue LeBron in the summer of 2010 but no one else. Are they really ready to put all their eggs in that one basket?

              As for the Suns, if money is the main issue, will they be able to keep Lee and Robinson? Both are restricted free agents this summer, and Lee, especially, likely will command a rich deal … perhaps too rich for Sarver's wallet.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              HEAT: Michael Beasley and Shawn Marion


              Why they'd do it: It sounds strange to hear of the Heat potentially doing a second-straight trade deadline deal with Phoenix, especially since it involves sending Marion back to the Suns, but this time Miami would get what it really wants, a young big to pair with Dwyane Wade. Wade and Stoudemire would be probably the most athletic tandem in the league and great cornerstones for the franchise.



              The Suns could let Marion's large contract expire, then try out Beasley in Stoudemire's place. Beasley is an incredible talent and probably the best prospect they could get for Stoudemire.



              Why they wouldn't: It's hard to see what would stop the Heat from pulling the trigger. The deal would almost be too good to be true. The biggest downside is that the Heat would have to take back Alando Tucker and Goran Dragic to make the salaries work.



              For the Suns, it's not a bad deal if Beasley's as good as everyone thought he was coming out of college.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              THUNDER: Jeff Green, Joe Smith and Desmond Mason



              Why they'd do it: The Thunder have been methodically collecting assets and expiring contracts. But even though Oklahoma City will have lots of cap room this summer, will anyone want to go there?

              Adding Stoudemire to the mix would immediately jump-start the fledgling franchise. The potential of a core of Stoudemire, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook would be, in a word, awesome.



              Green would be the draw for Phoenix. Although not everyone in the league is in love with Green, but after Beasley, Green might be the best young player the Suns could get in a Stoudemire trade. And the expiring contracts of Smith and Mason would allow the Suns to clear another $10 million off their cap this summer.



              Why they wouldn't: The Thunder would struggle to re-sign Stoudemire in 2010, especially if they weren't a contender by then. If a big-market team such as the Knicks or Heat came courting, OKC could lose him for nothing, setting back the franchise.



              The Suns like Green, but is he enough? He's been frustratingly inconsistent and just doesn't look like the type of player you can build around.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              PISTONS: Amir Johnson and Rasheed Wallace



              Why they'd do it: Joe Dumars has the best track record in the league of rehabilitating players other teams have given up on. Under his wing, Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace thrived. Could he do the same for Stoudemire? Add Amare to young gun Rodney Stuckey and great team players such as Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince, and the Pistons are a force again in the East.


              The Suns get Wallace's expiring contract, plus they get Johnson, a young big with a ton of potential.



              Why they wouldn't: If they stand pat, the Pistons potentially will have $20 million under the cap this summer with little competition for big-time free agents. If Amare were to bolt Detroit in 2010 or fail to fit in, the Pistons would have swung and missed on their best chance to build another contender.



              The Suns wouldn't be getting much here. Wallace comes off the books this summer, but is Johnson good enough to be a difference-maker? He's been a little ordinary in Detroit this year, raising the question, how much longer can we focus on his "potential" and wait for it to be realized?


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              CAVS: J.J. Hickson and Wally Szczerbiak


              Why they'd do it: The Cavs have been trying to land another star in Cleveland to play alongside LeBron James. Stoudemire would be a grand slam for them.



              The Suns would get back $13 million in cap relief and land a young power forward many NBA scouts are very high on. Hickson hasn't done much yet, but many scouts see him as a potential star big man.



              Why they wouldn't: Coach Mike Brown is committed to defense. Amare isn't. I wonder how that would work out.



              The Suns wouldn't be getting a sure thing in exchange for Stoudemire. As desperate as they might be to turn the team around, are they really that desperate?




              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



              GRIZZLIES: Mike Conley, Hakim Warrick and Darko Milicic

              Why they'd do it: The Grizzlies desperately need a power forward to pair with Rudy Gay and O.J. Mayo. Stoudemire would give them three of the best young players in the league and bring real hope to Memphis.

              The Suns would come away with some talent, although they would undoubtedly try to get the Grizzlies to put Gay in the deal. Conley could be the eventual heir to Steve Nash at the point, Warrick is a solid role player and Milicic can block shots and rebound when he's healthy.


              Why they wouldn't: It's hard to imagine Memphis re-signing Stoudemire in the summer of 2010, given its reputation for being reluctant to spend. So trading Conley, Warrick and Milicic is one thing; gambling Gay to rent Stoudemire for a season and a half is a risk the Grizzlies are unlikely to take.

              The Suns, meanwhile, want salary-cap relief as part of a return package for Stoudemire and this deal offers the least of any listed here. Only Warrick's contract comes off the books this summer.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              Potential trades for Shaq


              LAKERS: Lamar Odom, Chris Mihm and D.J. Mbenga

              • See this trade in the ESPN Trade Machine

              Why they'd do it: Yes, the breakup between the Lakers and Shaq was messy. But Phil Jackson has always loved Shaq, and with Andrew Bynum out for a while, L.A. could use someone who could step in and play immediately in the middle. Besides, it would be the best story of the year.



              The Suns need cap space, and this deal would save them a whopping $21 million next year after all the expiring contracts in the deal come off the books



              Why they wouldn't: The Shaq-Kobe dynamic could capsize the season, especially if their interpersonal drama is re-ignited. Whenever Bynum returns from being injured, there would be a serious logjam in the middle.

              And things are going pretty well for the Lakers. Do they need to make this drastic a move?



              There would be no downside for the Suns. In fact, I think they'll move Shaq to any team that can give them cap space -- even the Lakers. And yes, this is an admission that, on second thought, that Shaq deal wasn't such a great move.


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



              MAVERICKS: Jason Kidd

              • See this trade in the ESPN Trade Machine

              Why they'd do it: The Mavs want to be relevant again, and adding Shaq in the middle could help. He's having an All-Star year, and the Mavs can surround him with shooters. Although Kidd has played well, he's not the player he was, and Jason Terry could take over in his stead.



              The Suns would be getting $21 million of cap room. And how would they handle the awkward situation of having both Kidd and Nash again? Probably by waiving Kidd.



              Why they wouldn't: Mark Cuban's pockets aren't as deep as they used to be. Adding Shaq would cost him roughly $40 million next year after factoring in the luxury tax hit. That's a lot of cash.



              Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.

              Comment


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

                And the Pacers weren't mentioned in that at all.

                Blah...

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                  And the Pacers weren't mentioned in that at all.

                  Blah...
                  I mean to me, this has been the hitch to the whole situation from the beginning...why would Amare, by all accounts a bit of a prima dona with an attitude problem, want to come to a Pacer team that is 10+ games under .500.
                  The issue was never, do the Pacers have the pieces or would TPTB consider it to me, it was Amare would never come to Indiana at this point in time willingly.


                  Comment


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

                    Amare is a bit like JO. He wants to be the man. Im not sure how exactly that would play out with Danny. Everyone loves having Danny as the face of the franchise. I wonder if Amare could ever be comfortable with that.

                    I have my doubts.

                    There is no doubt he is a phenomenal talent. But I cant help but think there would be serious chemistry issues if he were to somehow end up here-which I think is incredibly unlikely.

                    I mean if you have chemistry issues with guys like Nash and Shaq....well.....
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Indy View Post
                      I mean to me, this has been the hitch to the whole situation from the beginning...why would Amare, by all accounts a bit of a prima dona with an attitude problem, want to come to a Pacer team that is 10+ games under .500.
                      The issue was never, do the Pacers have the pieces or would TPTB consider it to me, it was Amare would never come to Indiana at this point in time willingly.
                      Amare has no say in the matter. He has to go wherever the hell the Suns tell him he has to go.

                      Now he can leave when his contract is up, but that is another matter.

                      Comment


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

                        Let's trade our expirings for Shaq to make a run for the 8th seed, baby!! Could you imagine the conversation between him and O'Brien when it comes to what Jim would be asking him to do defensively?

                        "I ain't goin' out that far, little leprechaun!"

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Indy View Post
                          I mean to me, this has been the hitch to the whole situation from the beginning...why would Amare, by all accounts a bit of a prima dona with an attitude problem, want to come to a Pacer team that is 10+ games under .500.
                          The issue was never, do the Pacers have the pieces or would TPTB consider it to me, it was Amare would never come to Indiana at this point in time willingly.
                          Originally posted by WetBob View Post
                          Amare has no say in the matter. He has to go wherever the hell the Suns tell him he has to go.

                          Now he can leave when his contract is up, but that is another matter.
                          That's what I was going to say. You get traded...you're gone.

                          I honestly do not think that the Suns could give a rat's behind on where they send their players, as long as they get what they want in return.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Burtrem Redneck View Post
                            Yeah man,
                            I think some people here would not be satisfied with any trade unless it was Kobe, Lebron or Dwight Howard. Amare would be a fantastic pick up for the team, anyone but Granger.. That's not just because of talent but because Danny is the face of the team. I want them to keep him. Everyone else can go.
                            Also some guys would not be satisfied with trading Tinsley for anybody, they want a draft pick and young players in return, I posted a trade thread with Jason Kapono, Kris Humphries and Joey Graham for Jeff Foster and Jamaal Tinsley and they were saying that Now we could pull the "all swingman" lineup. .
                            I feel your pain BurtremRedneck.
                            @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 Burtrem Redneck View Post
                              Yeah man,
                              I think some people here would not be satisfied with any trade unless it was Kobe, Lebron or Dwight Howard. Amare would be a fantastic pick up for the team, anyone but Granger.. That's not just because of talent but because Danny is the face of the team. I want them to keep him. Everyone else can go.
                              I agree. Most trades can be seen as "my garbage for your garbage" deals on some level otherwise those players wouldn't be on the block on the first place. Those trades can often turn out to be mutually beneficial, like the GS trade was.

                              I thought acquiring Rasheed Wallace would be the kiss of death for Detroit in 2004. Instead, it put them over the top and without Rasheed we probably could have beaten them in the 2004 ECF. That trade was a calculated risk for the Pistons and it ended up working out. At some point the Pacers will probably have to make such a risk if they want to be really successful.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                                That's what I was going to say. You get traded...you're gone.

                                I honestly do not think that the Suns could give a rat's behind on where they send their players, as long as they get what they want in return.
                                All Amare has to say is that he will be a big pain in the *** for the Pacers to kill a deal. Amare has all sorts of control over where he gets traded.


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X