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

Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

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

  • #31
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    To BillS, Cable, and Count: I think the scenario you envision, my scenario "B" of re-signing Jack to be the starter, and then trading Ford for a power player inside is the most conventional train of thought that I think most fans will choose at this point. In this case, I think the majority is mistaken.

    I fail to see why a team that struggles so much defensively should base one of its biggest decisions on offensive concerns however. Especially since I think Ford is a slightly better individual player offensively, and I don't agree that our offense from a team standpoint flows that much better with Jack playing instead. I think Jack's defense was this season a smidgen better defending the point of attack than Ford's, but neither was a stopper by any means.

    I guess I must view Jack as more of a "small 2" guard, a poor man's version of Ben Gordon, while you guys view him as starting point guard material for a really good team. He has intangibles in terms of attitude, toughness, leadership, etc etc that I like, but I think you plan a team with "purity in guards" at the point, and I think he is a mini shooting guard masquerading as a point guard.
    Well, to clarify my position, it's A while trying to execute B. I don't think either Jack or Ford is the answer to the PG position, at least not if you're looking for the point guard to be one of your top two or three players.

    However, my overall position is that we have to figure out how to get through the next two seasons with very few options. I don't find it particularly realistic to be able to trade either Jack or Ford (or really any asset we have) to retrieve that elusive PG or PF we need.

    We are faced with a situation where our hands are tied until 2011, when our salary situation clears up. I find it not only unlikely that we will be able to make any significant moves, I also think that trying to hard to do it could do some significant harm.

    I re-sign Jack for three basic reasons:

    1. He's the best use of the money - He is versatile, young, and relatively talented. He is a known quantity, and, I believe, can be had relatively cheaply at a $3.5 to $4.0mm starting salary, and $16mm over 4 years.

    2. He is talent on a team short on talent and short on means to add talent. There was a general good feeling at the end of this season, but another 36-46 year will not engender these thoughts again. Over the next two years, they need to push up over .500 and into the playoffs. They need to do this without creating issues that extend beyond 2011. I believe our best path is to add contributing pieces through the draft over the next two years while waiting for the opporunity to add significant talent during and after 2011, most likely through trades. This is not dooming ourselves to mediocrity. It is simply displaying patience in a bad situation.

    3. I believe he's good for the team, the franchise, and the locker room. I have no illusions about him being a superstar, but I can easily see him taking over the role that Jeff Foster's held for years. Once the contracts expire, we will need players, and Jack is a guy that I'd like to be there, along with Danny, Brandon, and Roy. I believe he can be a contributor in the resurgence of the Pacers, and he can do it without a prohibitive price tag.

    tbird, I have long held you in very high regard. I eagerly await your posts. However, I also recognized that you and I have vastly different approaches. Mine is far more utilitarian, and grounded (some could say, mired) in what I think we "can" do, as opposed to what I would "like" to do. I struggle, from time to time, with what we actually "need" to do.

    In any case, it is my opinion that, while Jack and TJ are not the ideal situation at point, it seems to be the most sensible of the practical solutions currently available to us.

    On another tangent...as far as Tinsley being far better, I would say that was only true from time to time. What is absolutely true is that Jamaal spent about 40% of his last five seasons (not including this one) being equal to the worst point guards ever to don a Pacer uniform.

    Theoretical Jamaal was a very good point guard. Real Jamaal couldn't stay on the floor.
    Last edited by count55; 04-18-2009, 07:35 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

      Once again, some outstanding thoughts in this thread since the last time I posted. It is this kind of intelligent discussion that keeps me craving more time to spend here. I have a few other things to add to the discussion, based on what some of you have posted.

      To Peck: I think you and I are on the same wavelength here for the most part. I grew to mostly despise all the defensive weaknesses that the Ford/Jack small backcourt playing together gave us. I thought it weakened our defense all over the floor, and made us try and "gerrymander" a team defense around all the holes we were trying to plug. It gave us some offensive advantages sometimes I admit, but defensively I thought this pairing was pretty bad. I was and still am shocked at how often Jim O'Brien played these 2 together at the same time. I actually think they each have different skills they bring to the table, and I don't dislike either player...I just hate them playing at the same time so much. My guess is that Bird feels the same.

      To Count: I too have a high regard for your posts, and looked forward to hearing your take on this subject. I disagree with your assumption that Jack will want to sign a 4 year deal for only 3.5 to 4 million per year however. With as many teams out there that will need a starting point guard or at least an upgrade in their backcourt (Philadelphia, Charlotte, Houston, Pheonix perhaps, Atlanta, and several others) I just see Jack earning something closer to 3-4 years at 6.5 or 7 million per year. If that is the case, then I see absolutely no way we can or should match that type of offer.

      To Kellogg: I agree that Jack has a nice aura of toughness and attitude about him that is alluring. He must have that type of charisma, because it is apparent that most of Pacer nation is drawn to him over the more reserved Ford. I get that, I really do....but Jack isn't anywhere close to the level of defender that Ron Artest was. My real problem with Jack is that I consider him below average defensively at both backcourt spots. If he was superior offensively or had better defenders around him it wouldn't matter so much, but with what we have to play with him he sticks out to me like a sore thumb on that end of the floor.

      Ford wasn't what I expected or wanted on defense either of course. The only difference in my evaluation of both players abilities is that I think it is possible that Ford can improve and be better that he played this year, and I think Jack just is what he is....a slower tweener 2 guard who can't handle quickness and lacks size to handle bigger guards also.

      To BluenGold: Your point is well taken, except to the fact that I think it would be a bigger deal than you let on to make that kind of gamble. The Pacers have the playoffs in mind in 2009-2010, and I can't see them leaving themselves at risk of being without a point guard under contract besides Deiner and some rookie (if we draft a point guard).

      I think many of you aren't factoring in the time line of events that is going to be taking place with this decision. The timeline of how this is going to unfold is a huge factor in my view. If you decide to deal Ford, the best time to do that is going to be on or very near draft night at the end of June. But then you can't negotiate with Jack until a couple of weeks or so after that, at the beginning of July. You run the risk of being without a viable point guard when the music stops if you choose to try my "scenario B". That risk in turn may cause you to reach on a point guard on draft night to cover yourself, which in turn may cause you to be unable to make other corresponding moves. The timeline here is a vital piece of information many of you need to factor in I think in what you believe will happen.

      Now consider this factor: Jack may tell Indiana that I want to start, and that I won't be a happy camper if you match my contract and expect me to come off the bench. I think it reasonable to believe that Jack will think he has earned a starting spot, since most of you feel the same. Then that leaves you with an unhappy Ford making nearly 9 million as a backup point guard. If you believe Ford will be agreeable in October to coming off the bench as he was this spring, then I think you are mistaken.

      Because of that, I think it is impossible to keep both. Due to what I percieve as the logistical time line issue and the fact that I believe Ford has greater upside and lets you build the team in a more traditional way, I think many of you are going to be posting in early to mid July mad that we lost Jack to some other franchise.....my super early guess is that he ends up in Atlanta, with us spending time from now until it happens trying to work out a sign and trade deal in which we at least get SOMETHING of value in return for agreeing not to match.

      I could be wrong though....it certainly wouldn't be the first time. If we do keep TJ Ford over Jack like I suspect we are going to, Ford is going to have to step up his game to win the fans back, especially on the defensive end. If Ford doesn't drastically increase his defense at the point of attack, then I'll be on here ripping him just like the rest of you.

      Lastly, let me ask you all this: If you have the ability to sign one and only one free agent in the entire league to a free agent contract for 5-6 milliona year for 3-4 years, is Jarrett Jack really the guy you want among all the other choices?

      What if you could sign instead a Trevor Ariza, a Paul Millsap, or perhaps a Brandon Bass, or maybe even a Charlie Villanueva? Just from a positional standpoint, don't those make more sense? Ariza giving you a big time defender at the wing spot to take the place of Daniels and Dunleavy who is in his early 20's, and the other three adding to your athleticism and toughness inside.....wouldn't that be a better allocation of resources? Just asking.....

      I don't see Jack coming back to Indianapolis everyone......if I am wrong then so be it, and I certainly like him well enough personally to not be disappointed if he does return, but I think it would be a good idea for most of you to start considering the possibility that he won't be back.

      Just my opinion of course.

      Tbird

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
        I disagree with your assumption that Jack will want to sign a 4 year deal for only 3.5 to 4 million per year however. With as many teams out there that will need a starting point guard or at least an upgrade in their backcourt (Philadelphia, Charlotte, Houston, Pheonix perhaps, Atlanta, and several others) I just see Jack earning something closer to 3-4 years at 6.5 or 7 million per year. If that is the case, then I see absolutely no way we can or should match that type of offer.

        To Kellogg: I agree that Jack has a nice aura of toughness and attitude about him that is alluring. He must have that type of charisma, because it is apparent that most of Pacer nation is drawn to him over the more reserved Ford. I get that, I really do....but Jack isn't anywhere close to the level of defender that Ron Artest was. My real problem with Jack is that I consider him below average defensively at both backcourt spots. If he was superior offensively or had better defenders around him it wouldn't matter so much, but with what we have to play with him he sticks out to me like a sore thumb on that end of the floor.

        Ford wasn't what I expected or wanted on defense either of course. The only difference in my evaluation of both players abilities is that I think it is possible that Ford can improve and be better that he played this year, and I think Jack just is what he is....a slower tweener 2 guard who can't handle quickness and lacks size to handle bigger guards also.

        To BluenGold: Your point is well taken, except to the fact that I think it would be a bigger deal than you let on to make that kind of gamble. The Pacers have the playoffs in mind in 2009-2010, and I can't see them leaving themselves at risk of being without a point guard under contract besides Deiner and some rookie (if we draft a point guard).

        I think many of you aren't factoring in the time line of events that is going to be taking place with this decision. The timeline of how this is going to unfold is a huge factor in my view. If you decide to deal Ford, the best time to do that is going to be on or very near draft night at the end of June. But then you can't negotiate with Jack until a couple of weeks or so after that, at the beginning of July. You run the risk of being without a viable point guard when the music stops if you choose to try my "scenario B". That risk in turn may cause you to reach on a point guard on draft night to cover yourself, which in turn may cause you to be unable to make other corresponding moves. The timeline here is a vital piece of information many of you need to factor in I think in what you believe will happen.

        Now consider this factor: Jack may tell Indiana that I want to start, and that I won't be a happy camper if you match my contract and expect me to come off the bench. I think it reasonable to believe that Jack will think he has earned a starting spot, since most of you feel the same. Then that leaves you with an unhappy Ford making nearly 9 million as a backup point guard. If you believe Ford will be agreeable in October to coming off the bench as he was this spring, then I think you are mistaken.

        Because of that, I think it is impossible to keep both. Due to what I percieve as the logistical time line issue and the fact that I believe Ford has greater upside and lets you build the team in a more traditional way, I think many of you are going to be posting in early to mid July mad that we lost Jack to some other franchise.....my super early guess is that he ends up in Atlanta, with us spending time from now until it happens trying to work out a sign and trade deal in which we at least get SOMETHING of value in return for agreeing not to match.

        I could be wrong though....it certainly wouldn't be the first time. If we do keep TJ Ford over Jack like I suspect we are going to, Ford is going to have to step up his game to win the fans back, especially on the defensive end. If Ford doesn't drastically increase his defense at the point of attack, then I'll be on here ripping him just like the rest of you.

        Lastly, let me ask you all this: If you have the ability to sign one and only one free agent in the entire league to a free agent contract for 5-6 milliona year for 3-4 years, is Jarrett Jack really the guy you want among all the other choices?

        What if you could sign instead a Trevor Ariza, a Paul Millsap, or perhaps a Brandon Bass, or maybe even a Charlie Villanueva? Just from a positional standpoint, don't those make more sense? Ariza giving you a big time defender at the wing spot to take the place of Daniels and Dunleavy who is in his early 20's, and the other three adding to your athleticism and toughness inside.....wouldn't that be a better allocation of resources? Just asking.....

        I don't see Jack coming back to Indianapolis everyone......if I am wrong then so be it, and I certainly like him well enough personally to not be disappointed if he does return, but I think it would be a good idea for most of you to start considering the possibility that he won't be back.

        Just my opinion of course.

        Tbird
        Im a bit confused. You say that Jack is lacking in basically all aspects of play, yet other teams will be looking to sign him for 6 to 7 million a year because they need a starter or upgrade in the backcourt. So who is right?? The teams that you say would pay him 6 or 7 million because hes a starter/upgrade or you that feel like hes not really that caliber.

        I happen to totally agree with count. You mention that the timeline will come in to play. But actually you are forgetting some key factors, most notably that I believe Jack will be a restricted free agent meaning as long as the Pacers tender a qualifying offer they will be able to match offers. So the scenario you paint about possibly being able to be in a position where we have neither Jack or TJ is, I believe, just about impossible. I do believe its going to be very difficult to keep both. And management is far more perceptive than we are. So they obviously know the same problems. I think you are also forgetting the economics that are going on with basketball right now, and I think the money that Jack will be able to get will be significantly reduced. Thats why I dont think Count is far off with what he thinks Jack will be able to get. Now, which would you prefer-Jack making 4 or 5 million a year or TJ making nearly 9?

        We also disagree about who is the bigger defensive liability. And who might get better and who might not. I know one thing, you said Jack isnt able to handle the bigger guards, well TJ surely cant handle them. They just take him right into the post and its game, set, and match.

        I think they will do everything they can to trade Ford as quickly as possible. Trades can be done anytime. I think they will do this for a number of reasons. Not the least of which, it appears Jack may be a bit more respected as a leader by his teammates. He doesnt control the ball quite as much and that seems to be a big feather in his cap with the other guys. He seems genuinely a bit more interested in getting the other guys the ball than getting it on his own.

        Now, do I think we will get that PF that we crave for Ford? Nope. Most likely role players that make some sort of financial sense.

        You say Jack wouldnt be too bad with decent wing defenders. I would say with Rush and Granger, you will have an above average set of wing defenders.

        As for the free agents you mentioned, most of them wont be leaving their current teams. The couple that might would do us little good.

        But at least we do agree on one thing. The odds of both of them being here next season seems a bit of a stretch.
        The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

          Like everyone else, I'd rather keep Jack and move Ford. But it's a worthwhile question as to whether that's do-able.

          tbird, do you really think Millsap is going to sign for less than the MLE?
          Last edited by Anthem; 04-18-2009, 11:48 PM.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Like everyone else, I'd rather keep Jack and move Ford. But it's a worthwhile question as to whether that's do-able.

            tbird, do you really think Millsap is going to sign for less than the MLE?
            This bothered me, too. It's one of those statements that is plausible enough to make the case with, but it isn't really possible.

            I would pick Millsap, obviously, but I don't see him as an even vaguely realistic possibility. I would, however, choose Jack over Villaneuva and Ariza, and probably Bass, though I haven't seen him enough.

            Ariza's allure escapes me, at least for the price I'm afraid he'll command, particularly if, as I suspect, they win a title.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

              cinotimz: I do agree that it is certainly possible that TJ gets traded in the offseason, perhaps more likely than us losing Jack. For financial reasons alone it makes more sense to get Jack at say, the MLE, than paying TJ. And despite the fact that both TJ and Jack behaved very professionally this year, I think everyone in the Pacers front office probably realizes that you can't have a PG controversy indefinitely. TJ certainly is a bit more vocal about his desire to start, but when Jack gets into it with TJ in one game then starts shaking his head in disapproval in another when TJ fails to pass and blows a layup on a 2 on 1 fastbreak, it can't be a good situation forever.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                I'm in the camp to keep Jack.

                1) When it's all said and done, Jack's contract is going to be far more conducive salarywise. 8-9 mil for Ford is too much for speed and a PG that wants to have the ball in his hands too much. It's too much for a PG that constantly dribbles into trouble then has the bad habit of turning the ball over. It's too much for his caliber of a PG that feels at the end of the game he needs to win the game with his scoring and not getting others involved in the play to win.

                2) Something that has been mostly brushed over is the health issue of Ford. Yes, Ford played 70 plus games this year, what if he gets injured as in the past? I'm more comfortable, health wise, with Jack at PG with Diener and a rookie as b/u.

                3) I don't like that fact that the Pacers have 15-16 mil wrapped up at the PG in Ford and Tinsley. A 4-5 mil in Jack is a whole lot better.

                4) I like Jack's bulldog toughness. I like his "D" and size better at PG as well.


                I'm also in the camp that I'm not sure Bird can find a trade for Ford. I'm not expecting a great player in return, but a couple of nice role players with decent contracts would be nice. I don't see being able to get a 1st round pick as well, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a 2nd rounder or 2 in order to make it a possibility.

                Finding Ford a new team to me is a big fly in the ointment as to what's going to be possible in what the Pacers do. It maybe that TPTB can't find a trade for Ford and won't be able to keep Jack.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                  I cant believe all this talk that Jack is far better than TJ. TJ is the PG we need to get back to the ECF. Jack is a solid 6th man for a strong team or a starter on a bad one. If we insert TJ on our Pacers teams that had JO,Ron,Reggie, we beat Det and get to a finals. I cant say the same for Jack. He doesnt have the same court vision as TJ. TJ played more presason minutes than anyone as well as halfway thru the season. HE got tired and started forcing everything which pissed people off. Youre gonna see next season that TJ is gonna step up his game and we're gonna win the 6th seed cause of it. People tend to forget that if TJ didnt break his neck that he'd be in the 2nd top tier of pg's in the league. Just like Granger is now when it comes to scorers. TJ with a broken neck has the same or better stats than all of Tinsleys. TJ is the man and alot of you need to lay off and quit acting like this guy is replaceable when he's really not.

                  I say let TJ be our starter for 3 years,draft his replacement sometime in the next 2 drafts, then let him go.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                    Originally posted by blitzforce View Post

                    TJ is the man and alot of you need to lay off and quit acting like this guy is replaceable when he's really not.

                    WOW! Is that you TJ?


                    TJ Ford isn't chopped liver, BUT he isn't the 2nd coming either. This is his 3RD team now. Apparently, you are watching a different TJ Ford than most on this forum have been ALL season long. He's nothing spectacular like you seem to think. He's better than what the Pacers have had the last few seasons, but he's not Mark Jackson by any stretch of the imagination. I'd take the Bucks 2nd year b/u PG Ramon Sessions over Ford any day of the week and twice on Sunday! That's how replaceable TJ Ford is.
                    Last edited by Justin Tyme; 04-19-2009, 04:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                      TBird, while I agree w/ you on the timing of things related to trading TJ at/before the draft & resigning J.Jack later & the risk involved there, I still think we have to explore it. I however am not sold on the fact that the 2 must be broken up. I agree the 2 playing together was not good - esp defensively, & I suspect that will not happen much n/y. I think the 2 can co-exsist. They are both competative guys, but I have to think that winning is important to both. I would like both to be better defensively & if we can get an enforcer inside, & stop playing them out of position, I think they can get better w/ no other effort. If they actually work at it, who knows.
                      Also, if we think TJ will opt out of his P/O after n/y think J.Jack still has a reason to stay even if he feels he's a starter now, & we still have a reason to look for a TJ trade.
                      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                        I now have carefully read this entire thread twice ... and would like to nominate it for a top-ten post of the year award. Many intelligent comments are being offered on a significant topic on which we clearly do not agree, yet where each side has merit.

                        Tbird, on the subject of Jarrett Jack's salary to come, I've been siding with Count on predicting $3.5 - 4 million. Since I, too, anticipate new contracts being less than formerly expected (due to the economy, of course), I'll be Peja-Stojakovic-level surprised if your estimate proves more accurate. However, I acknowledge your buyer's-market attitude toward a "starting-caliber" PG. Moreover, I will offer that in preparing my season-end report, Jack's statistics suggest a salary of $4.85 million (partly due to the fact that he played in all 82 games), putting him in the $5-million range for next season. Given this, I find myself readjusting my position to somewhere in between your and Count's estimates ... which may make this whole issue even MORE difficult and MORE interesting!

                        Thanks again and nice job, everyone!


                        "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


                        • #42
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          Well, to clarify my position, it's A while trying to execute B. I don't think either Jack or Ford is the answer to the PG position, at least not if you're looking for the point guard to be one of your top two or three players.

                          However, my overall position is that we have to figure out how to get through the next two seasons with very few options. I don't find it particularly realistic to be able to trade either Jack or Ford (or really any asset we have) to retrieve that elusive PG or PF we need.

                          We are faced with a situation where our hands are tied until 2011, when our salary situation clears up. I find it not only unlikely that we will be able to make any significant moves, I also think that trying to hard to do it could do some significant harm.

                          I re-sign Jack for three basic reasons:

                          1. He's the best use of the money - He is versatile, young, and relatively talented. He is a known quantity, and, I believe, can be had relatively cheaply at a $3.5 to $4.0mm starting salary, and $16mm over 4 years.

                          2. He is talent on a team short on talent and short on means to add talent. There was a general good feeling at the end of this season, but another 36-46 year will not engender these thoughts again. Over the next two years, they need to push up over .500 and into the playoffs. They need to do this without creating issues that extend beyond 2011. I believe our best path is to add contributing pieces through the draft over the next two years while waiting for the opporunity to add significant talent during and after 2011, most likely through trades. This is not dooming ourselves to mediocrity. It is simply displaying patience in a bad situation.

                          3. I believe he's good for the team, the franchise, and the locker room. I have no illusions about him being a superstar, but I can easily see him taking over the role that Jeff Foster's held for years. Once the contracts expire, we will need players, and Jack is a guy that I'd like to be there, along with Danny, Brandon, and Roy. I believe he can be a contributor in the resurgence of the Pacers, and he can do it without a prohibitive price tag.

                          tbird, I have long held you in very high regard. I eagerly await your posts. However, I also recognized that you and I have vastly different approaches. Mine is far more utilitarian, and grounded (some could say, mired) in what I think we "can" do, as opposed to what I would "like" to do. I struggle, from time to time, with what we actually "need" to do.

                          In any case, it is my opinion that, while Jack and TJ are not the ideal situation at point, it seems to be the most sensible of the practical solutions currently available to us.

                          On another tangent...as far as Tinsley being far better, I would say that was only true from time to time. What is absolutely true is that Jamaal spent about 40% of his last five seasons (not including this one) being equal to the worst point guards ever to don a Pacer uniform.

                          Theoretical Jamaal was a very good point guard. Real Jamaal couldn't stay on the floor.
                          I agree with this. I don't think Jack starts at the PG spot for a very good to great team (unless its like a Derek Fischer role on a triangle offense type team with a dominant wing player ala LA) However, I think he can be a valuable piece on a very good to great team... off the bench as a backup "all purpose" gaurd with good intangibles.

                          I also think he can be an ok fill in starter without a big price tag while we look for someone to be the "answer" at that position.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                            You know, all this talk about Jack and TJ has me thinking about Anthony Johnson and what he was able to do. I never liked AJ's game at the time because my standards were higher. Like Mark Jackson higher. But now looking back the dude looks pretty good. Scored 40 points in a playoff game and certainly played pretty good D with that 8 foot wing span. Oh, how things have changed. I would take AJ over TJ any day of the week and twice on Wednesdays.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                              I don't see Jack getting an offer of more than MLE. Atlanta could be interested, but Charlotte, Houston and Phily all have promising young PGs and Phoenix are in money saving mode and would have to deal Nash.

                              I'd assess the market for TJ and see if you can get something of value for him and hang onto Jack as long as its not more than a MLE-ish contract.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 offseason Big questions, part 1

                                Originally posted by Doug View Post
                                This is my biggest disappointment with TJ as well. I just don't understand it. I expected his defensive weakness to be getting posted up by bigger guards, not getting blown by out front.
                                I think it's mostly effort-based.

                                TJ, like t-bird said, has the potential to be a much better defender, and at times I've seen him lock down and not allow penetration, but one of the biggest knocks on him (outside of injury) was that he didn't always give the effort. That happened in Toronto and it stuck with him in Indiana.

                                While, I certainly think it's possible that TJ could become a good defender, I don't see it as part of his development. With some guys, like Danny, it seems like they'll spend a lot of time trying to correct their defense. I believe TJ won't, and judging by the way he gave up, I'm don't want to find out.

                                I'd much rather have Jarret, even defensively. He is now paired with Rush, and if Granger improves then Jarret's defensive mistakes will be easier to cover. Plus, I think we all saw which of the two the team responded to when things got rough.

                                Personally, I think TJ is much more tradeable. On paper his stats look great. His speed is an asset on any team and he's proven that he's not necessarily injury prone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X