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

Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

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

  • #16
    Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

    You have to remember....this is the Wizards.....they are looking to shed ( at worst 2009-2010 ) salary. The only way that they make an offer for Ginobilli is if they are sending out the 5th pick with some huge Salary to cut their SalaryCap.

    The best deal that I could come up with would be Manu for Haywood+Etan Thomas+5....but this would probably save the Wizards about $2.6 mil in 2009-2010 Salary...which isn't much to start off with.

    Doesn't seem like much value for the #5 pick....but that's why I think that the Mavs are the best trading partner to take on Stackhouse's unguaranteed Contract to clear CapSpace.
    Last edited by CableKC; 06-11-2009, 01:49 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
      How does that make any sense for us? Anything we could offer up would set back rebuilding two-three years.
      Nah. We'd have a been-there, done-that veteran to lead them.

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

      I don't waste time making up trades and checking them. Sorry. But off the top of my head, I'd give up some combination of either Foster or Hibbert, Dunleavy and our draft pick plus whatever salary filler on either side for Manu. Or include Ford and make the trade a three-way as the Spurs obviously don't need Ford.

      Again, there's no way the Spurs would take anything we've got for Manu - he's too valuable. But because he is so valuable, if he's on the market (which I doubt) we should figure out if we can get close.
      Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
      Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
      Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
      Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
      And life itself, rushing over me
      Life itself, the wind in black elms,
      Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

        Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
        Nah. We'd have a been-there, done-that veteran to lead them.

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

        I don't waste time making up trades and checking them. Sorry. But off the top of my head, I'd give up some combination of either Foster or Hibbert, Dunleavy and our draft pick plus whatever salary filler on either side for Manu. Or include Ford and make the trade a three-way as the Spurs obviously don't need Ford.

        Again, there's no way the Spurs would take anything we've got for Manu - he's too valuable. But because he is so valuable, if he's on the market (which I doubt) we should figure out if we can get close.
        Hibbert? I think I would get sick to my stomach if we traded a promising center with his whole career ahead of him in a deal for a 32 year old who is past his prime.

        I know this is all an unlikely hypothetical, but come on Jay, you yourself have said many times that the Granger-Hibbert-Rush trio is the future of this franchise. You'd be willing to throw all that away for a couple of years with Manu? Not only would you lose Hibbert in the deal, but you would kill Rush's development for the next few years. He needs to be playing 30+ minutes a night at the SG and he obviously wouldn't be getting that if Manu was on this team.

        And before you say that Manu could teach Rush, I'm going to say that's not at all what Brandon needs. Brandon needs 30+ minutes a night at the wing opposite of Danny and nothing else. He came from one of the best college basketball progams in the country, so I think he has a pretty good grip on how to play the game of basketball. He doesn't need Manu showing him what to do (as if that's how Manu would want to spend the last couple years of his career anyway). He himself said that the hardest thing about adjusting to the NBA was getting used to how fast the game was. Well, he seemed to have a pretty good grip on it by the end of the year. The only way he will get better is to continue to give him huge minutes.

        You only sacrifice the future in that magnitude if you can guarantee yourself that you will be a top 2-3 team with a good shot of reaching the conference finals. Sorry, Manu or no Manu that's not happening. Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando will be untouchable as the top 3 for the next 2-3 years unless something totally unforseeable happens. Manu Ginobili wouldn't be enough to elevate us over those teams. I'm not throwing away our future just to maybe win a playoff series (which I don't even know if we would with Manu). But Boston will be falling soon and Orlando might not be as good once Rashard and Hedo get some more age on them. Therefore, we have to continue to build a solid team and put ourselves in a position to make a deep playoff run in 3-4 years. By that time, Manu Ginobili will be a shell of his former self.

        I know this is all just silly hypothetical, but I'm just really surprised that you would do this Jay. I know you're a Ginobili fan, but I think your fondness of him is clouding your judgment. For the past year you've been a huge advocate of building the team around a Granger-Hibbert-Rush core and I'm surprised you would throw that away for a couple of years of a good Manu, who will at the absolute most lead you past the first round and no further. If we did that, we would have taken 3 steps forward but 5 backward. It would be a slap in the face to Brandon and all the hard work he's putting in this summer if we pulled something like that.

        EDIT: Manu is valuable to the Spurs because they're a championship contender year in and year out (with one of the best big men ever and a damn good pg). His abilities are enough to be a difference maker there and lead them to the promise land. But he wouldn't be near as valuable to a team that's 36-46. The most we could do with him is maybe win a playoff series, and I don't think we could even do that because we would have to give up so much for him. That's it. Not worth mortgaging the future for that.
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-11-2009, 02:48 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

          The Spurs are smart enough to realize it's time to get younger, so they're looking to rebuild on the fly. With #5 they could possibly replace aging Manu with James Harden, a 19 year old that can do a lot of the same things, and has the potential to be even better.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
            The Spurs are smart enough to realize it's time to get younger, so they're looking to rebuild on the fly. With #5 they could possibly replace aging Manu with James Harden, a 19 year old that can do a lot of the same things, and has the potential to be even better.
            But Duncan is 33. Do you think he wants to spend the last good years of his career waiting for a young guy to come around? I think he would be infuriated with the Spurs if they traded Manu. This team is just a year removed from the WCF's and 2 removed from a title. I personally don't think they'll ever get to the finals again, but I'm sure Duncan has that confidence---as he should.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

              At least if we were still were a below-average team, we'd get the privilige of watching Manu all the time. That's got to count for something, right?

              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                At least if we were still were a below-average team, we'd get the privilige of watching Manu all the time. That's got to count for something, right?


                No....

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                  This is leaving me to believe that they want to blend some younger guys with the older veterans and look to rebuild.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                    BOO!!
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      BOO!!
                      I'm just disappointed in you more than anything, Jay. For the past year I've loved reading your "Granger-Rush-Hibbert are the future core, we will build this team around them through the draft, we shouldn't waste time playing crappy veterans, and the rookies could have led us to the playoffs anyway" posts, and have agreed with them 100%. It hurts to think you would support throwing that away for a player who has 2-3 really good years left. A player that couldn't lead us past the first round and definitely wouldn't be able to lead us past the second.

                      It just seems to contradict all of the great points you have made for the past 12 months.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                        I think you're underestimating Ginbolli. I think he's had a lot more to do with driving that team's success - IMO he was the MVP of the '05 Finals and co-MVP of the '07 Finals. Yes, Duncan is a super-solid player but Manu was both an outstanding player and more importantly, seems to be the real team leader as Duncan tends to defer to him.

                        That I'm willing to toss Hibbert in there is more about how much I respect and appreciate Manu than a happiness about giving up Hibbert. Yes, I'd rather the Spurs be willing to take Ford, Foster, and Dunleavy off our hands for Manu. But there's no way the Spurs would do that since they have no need for Ford, Dunleavy's hurt, and Foster is six months older and broken down just like you say Manu is (and 40% less expensive because he is 25% of the player that Manu is.)

                        I also don't think Manu is particuarly close to being washed up. I don't know if he wants to play until he's 39 or not, but like Reggie he never really relied on his speed - moreso on his savvy and toughness. (Not to mention, he's an outstanding ballhandler with a staggeringly high ATO considering how often he makes a crafty drive through traffic - something that won't necessarily be hampered if he "slows down".) However, unlike Reggie, he's won multiple championships in Europe, the NBA, and International ball, so he doesn't need to extend his career chasing one.

                        For me, mental toughness is more important than anything else. And nobody demonstrates that better than Manu.

                        (Frankly, I'd trade Granger for him, but can you imagine how much I'd get flamed by everyone except about three PD posters I don't read... After all, we all hope that Granger eventually grows into what Manu is - a mentally tough and immensely talented player that is a leader of a championship team. Maybe time will prove that Manu can't get back to that level without Duncan, but the question is not "can he ever develop into that player" but rather "can we built a team around him in that window of time"? With Danny, even though he's had a lot of success, it is still the first question.)

                        Pop says it best,

                        He has a willingness to do what it takes to win, and to do it at the highest possible level of intensity, every single minute he steps on the court.
                        LeBron and Howard are probably the only other two players I'd be willing to break up the Rush-Granger-Hibbert core for. And even then, neither LeBron or Howard have ever proven they are the winner that Manu is. But they are younger.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                          ChicagoJ you are right I been always saying that Manu is been one of the best players in the NBA for the last ten years, he is so underrated this guy can do it all, play D and score, him and Kobe have been the best clutch shooters in the decade, I remember last year when Parker and Duncan were hurt and Manu was scoring 40 points every night to keep the team in the playoffs, I would trade anybody but Danny for him.
                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                            Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                            I think you're underestimating Ginbolli. I think he's had a lot more to do with driving that team's success - IMO he was the MVP of the '05 Finals and co-MVP of the '07 Finals. Yes, Duncan is a super-solid player but Manu was both an outstanding player and more importantly, seems to be the real team leader as Duncan tends to defer to him.

                            That I'm willing to toss Hibbert in there is more about how much I respect and appreciate Manu than a happiness about giving up Hibbert. Yes, I'd rather the Spurs be willing to take Ford, Foster, and Dunleavy off our hands for Manu. But there's no way the Spurs would do that since they have no need for Ford, Dunleavy's hurt, and Foster is six months older and broken down just like you say Manu is (and 40% less expensive because he is 25% of the player that Manu is.)

                            I also don't think Manu is particuarly close to being washed up. I don't know if he wants to play until he's 39 or not, but like Reggie he never really relied on his speed - moreso on his savvy and toughness. (Not to mention, he's an outstanding ballhandler with a staggeringly high ATO considering how often he makes a crafty drive through traffic - something that won't necessarily be hampered if he "slows down".) However, unlike Reggie, he's won multiple championships in Europe, the NBA, and International ball, so he doesn't need to extend his career chasing one.

                            For me, mental toughness is more important than anything else. And nobody demonstrates that better than Manu.

                            (Frankly, I'd trade Granger for him, but can you imagine how much I'd get flamed by everyone except about three PD posters I don't read... After all, we all hope that Granger eventually grows into what Manu is - a mentally tough and immensely talented player that is a leader of a championship team. Maybe time will prove that Manu can't get back to that level without Duncan, but the question is not "can he ever develop into that player" but rather "can we built a team around him in that window of time"? With Danny, even though he's had a lot of success, it is still the first question.)

                            Pop says it best,



                            LeBron and Howard are probably the only other two players I'd be willing to break up the Rush-Granger-Hibbert core for. And even then, neither LeBron or Howard have ever proven they are the winner that Manu is. But they are younger.

                            I never meant to underestimate Ginobili. I'll say this right now: The Spurs are a very good team without him (as is evident by them still getting the 3rd seed), but are a championship-caliber team with him. But they are a very good team in the first place because of Tim Duncan. Having one of the greatest big men of all time ensures that the team will be solid every year (as they were this year even without Manu) and gives guys like Manu and Parker opportunities to shine in the playoffs that they probably wouldn't have if they weren't playing along side a player of his caliber. It's kind of like Paul Pierce-- he's a winner too, but he would have never had the opportunity to shine in the finals unless he had a KG-type guy alongside him to get him there in the first place.

                            But I agree 100% with your assessment of what Manu brings to the table. They aren't even close to being a championship team without him, as we saw this season. He's a winner.

                            My issue with your comments was whether it would be wise for the Pacers to trade for Manu or not. Given the Pacers current condition, I don't think it would be. Realistically, we would have to trade some pretty valuable pieces to get him in the first place, giving you Granger, Manu and Rush (who would cannibalize each other for minutes) and a pretty weak supporting cast. Is that enough to beat Cleveland, Orlando, or Boston over the next couple of seasons? IMO, No-freaking-way. Not to mention that Miami has Wade alongside Chalmers and Beasley, who are only going to get better. Also, Atlanta has been playoff tested the past couple of seasons.

                            I think that realistically, the best we could do over the next couple of seasons is advance past the first round. Is that worth mortgaging the future?

                            You're right that Reggie was still playing at 39, but you have to remember that Reggie in his late 30's certainly didn't look like Reggie at 32. His game dropped off heavily from 02-04 (blame it on deferring or the injury in the WBC's if you want, but age had to play a part in it to), and picked back up in the last season because he was playing off of pure emotion. It's just a fact that guys drop off once they get past 35. Manu in 3 or so more years isn't going to look like the 05 and 07 Manu, especially given the fact that he's played pro ball since 1995.

                            But I guess my biggest issue is that adding Manu would kill the development of Rush, our SG of present and future. Rush should be getting 30+ minutes a game from now on, and he certainly wouldn't get that if Manu was here. He needs as much time as possible playing on the wing alongside Danny. You may think Manu would be a good role model for Rush, but I say he already has the perfect one here in Danny. Danny works his *** off and had a similar rookie season to Brandon, so I think he is the best role model possible for him.

                            All in all, I just don't think it would be worth mortgaging the future of Hibbert (by trading him) and Rush (by having one of the best SG's in the game come in and take minutes from him) just to have Manu who only has a couple of prime years left. I think you should only mortgage a future if you can reasonablly assure yourself that you will have a top 2-3 team in the conference, but I just don't see how we could be better than Boston, Orlando, or Cleveland. We need to continue with the foundation we laid last summer and make a run for when those teams (well, Boston and Orlando because of age) are inevitably down in 3 or 4 seasons.

                            And I'm certainly one that would flame you for the Manu for Granger statement, mainly because you never trade a 26 year old star for a 32 year old one (unless that 32 year olds name is Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and a select few of NBA legends).

                            We both know Manu to Indy isn't going to happen. The Spurs would want a high draft pick that they could mold into a star, and we don't have that to offer. But it's an interesting debate, nonetheless.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-11-2009, 07:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                              Did someone say Granger for Ginobili ??

                              Total insanity. 6 years ago - maybe. Now ?? Manu is on the tail end of his career, has been injured a lot and wouldn't have the rings he has if not for Duncan/Parker. Washington probably wanted him for a 1 year rental and then he's an expiring.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Wizards Make Offer For Ginobili

                                Manu is clearly a pipedream, and as I said, the question would be "can you get enough other pieces around him in a 2-3 year window?" Probably not.

                                But if you can get him without unloading Rush, Manu has only averaged more than 30 mpg once in his NBA career. You could even play Rush and Manu together some of the time, I think. I don't see where "bringing in one of the premier SGs in the world" to show Rush how its done could be a bad thing. Losing a spot in the rotation to a career backup like Daniels or an out-of-postion F like Dunleavy - that bothers me. Losing a few minutes to Manu would not.

                                You get Manu only if you really can get the other pieces to complement him right away. The Pacers can't do either part of the equation - get Manu or get the complimentary players. That's because they are still a long way from being a contender. And the fastest way back is taking the time to let Rush, Granger, Hibbert, Jack (hopefully) and TBD gel, mature, and develop.

                                But I do believe that a team of TBD, Manu, TBD, TBD and TBD is better than a team of TBD, TBD, Granger, TBD and TBD.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X