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

09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

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

  • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

    that is a gigantic "if."

    And watching Oden get worked over by Yao Ming in the playoffs last season made me lose faith in him anyhow.

    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: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

      I can't say how much the under use and under playing of Thabeet is killing me... I'd love to see him play 12-18 min per game, even if he fouled out.. just to see what he's capable of on the pro level...
      Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

      Comment


      • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

        Originally posted by GO!!!!! View Post
        I can't say how much the under use and under playing of Thabeet is killing me... I'd love to see him play 12-18 min per game, even if he fouled out.. just to see what he's capable of on the pro level...
        The top 2 picks in that draft have given their teams absolutely nothing this season. Strange.

        Comment


        • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          No trading teams for me. I like to watch my team grow.

          The Thunder are a really good young team that's several years ahead of us, but they will need some vets to reach the next level. You can't build all young. Everyone wants to play and you can't pay them all, so what happens is the team gets so good and that's it. It's where the Blazers are right now.
          Yes you can build all young. The Thunder are seeing much quicker results than the Pacers because they have better talented players. Those players are ages 21, 21, 23, and 20 years old. They are 33-21 with that young core and are on a 9 game winning streak. They are like the hottest team in the NBA. By all accounts, they love playing with one another and hang out off the court. Durant is like a top 5 player in the NBA right now and Russell Westbrook is playing like a top 5 PG. They both recently just celebrated their 21st birthday. They will be contending for titles for years to come. If you're a Thunder fan, you get a to watch a great team grow- a team that's as young as the Pacers but is light years ahead of in success.

          Yes you can play them all. Scott Brooks is doing a fantastic job there. All of the young guys are buying into his system. He will probably win the COY award. And Sam Presti is one of the best GM's in the league. Oklahoma City is one of the most exciting NBA atmospheres right now.l

          If you wouldn't trade the second worst team in the Eastern Conference that's seemingly light years away from serious contending for a 33-21 team (on a 9 game streak) who have won of the 5 best players in the NBA surrounded by a stud core that's in their early 20's then that's you're prerogative. It's just that every GM who isn't employed by the Lakers, Nuggets, Cavs, Magic, and Mavs would disagree with you.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 02-22-2010, 10:04 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

            Originally posted by cordobes View Post

            I can't understand why the Warriors didn't trade Ellis this deadline, if that Mayo+Thabeet offer was true.
            I find it equally hard to believe that the Grizz would've even made the Warriors that offer. Now you have both teams saying that they turned down the offer, LOL. Most likely the Warriors offered Monta for Mayo and the Grizz probably countered by saying Monta plus unprotected pick for Mayo and Thabeet. That's something I'm more inclined to believe.

            They would be idiots to turn down Thabeet and Mayo for just Monta, but the Grizz would've been out of their minds to offer it as well.

            Comment


            • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

              Originally posted by GO!!!!! View Post
              I can't say how much the under use and under playing of Thabeet is killing me... I'd love to see him play 12-18 min per game, even if he fouled out.. just to see what he's capable of on the pro level...
              Remember that he's supposed to be Mutombo in about 3 years. And he still has that chance.

              Remember, Mutombo was a 25 year old rookie. Heck, if rumors were true, he was something closer to a 28 year old rookie.

              Comment


              • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                I find it equally hard to believe that the Grizz would've even made the Warriors that offer. Now you have both teams saying that they turned down the offer, LOL. Most likely the Warriors offered Monta for Mayo and the Grizz probably countered by saying Monta plus unprotected pick for Mayo and Thabeet. That's something I'm more inclined to believe.

                They would be idiots to turn down Thabeet and Mayo for just Monta, but the Grizz would've been out of their minds to offer it as well.
                there is an article on ESPN about the trades that did not happen, if somebody could post that we could maybe know what the package was.
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                  the Wizards just won another game, now their record is 20w and 34L
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    I find it equally hard to believe that the Grizz would've even made the Warriors that offer. Now you have both teams saying that they turned down the offer, LOL. Most likely the Warriors offered Monta for Mayo and the Grizz probably countered by saying Monta plus unprotected pick for Mayo and Thabeet. That's something I'm more inclined to believe.

                    They would be idiots to turn down Thabeet and Mayo for just Monta, but the Grizz would've been out of their minds to offer it as well.
                    Ah yea, I also find this a little hard to believe, but I'm always expecting the worse from Wallace.

                    Still, Mayo for Ellis would be a good deal for the Warriors as well, IMO.

                    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                    there is an article on ESPN about the trades that did not happen, if somebody could post that we could maybe know what the package was.


                    Deadline aftermath: Biggest non-deals

                    By John Hollinger
                    ESPN.com

                    The trade deadline is over and the trades have been made; we've already gone over them in tremendous detail with last week's trade grades.

                    However, with a little time to reflect, it's time to ponder an entirely different set of events from the trade deadline: the trades that weren't made. In some cases, in fact, these are a lot more interesting than the ones that were made.

                    Several big names were in trade rumors leading up to the deadline and ended up not changing teams, most notably Amare Stoudemire but also Ray Allen, Monta Ellis, O.J. Mayo, Richard Jefferson and Andre Iguodala.

                    Meanwhile, some of the deals that were made also left us to ponder alternate scenarios -- different deals, perhaps, that might have been done instead. Several teams that made trades passed up different options that might have been just as compelling.

                    So now let's take a look at what might have been, and how those decisions may shape the league going forward, by asking the big questions about last week's non-deals:

                    Why didn't Phoenix trade Amare Stoudemire?

                    Phoenix has been criticized in a lot of quarters for not dealing Stoudemire when they might lose him for nothing after the season, but you won't hear such noise from this chamber.

                    The Suns did the right thing here (for more on who didn't, hang on a minute). They made it clear they were receptive to offers for Stoudemire, listened to what everybody was willing to do, and then decided it wasn't enough. Granted, they were more public about this than they needed to be and have to do some damage control with Stoudemire. Nonetheless, what they did is good trading, in its own way: They saw everybody's hand and decided to fold their cards. You don't have to play every hand you're dealt.

                    Phoenix had plenty of reason to hold out for a good offer. It would have been very, very odd for a team 10 games over .500 to salary-dump a star player; trading an All-Star like Stoudemire is very different from Utah's decision that Ronnie Brewer was fungible. Thus, the Suns' incentive to deal Stoudemire was pretty small unless they got bowled over; haggling with Cleveland over J.J. Hickson fell considerably short of that benchmark.

                    The Suns still have several options if they feel Stoudemire will opt out and become a free agent. (Given the uncertainty that awaits in the 2011 market, he probably will.) The two things everyone forgets are that (1) they still have until the end of June to extend his contract, and (2) trades get done at draft time.

                    What this means, in practice, is that Phoenix can do an "extend-and-trade" deal with Stoudemire on draft day, similar to the one the Celtics made to get Kevin Garnett three years ago. The Suns can also sign and trade him if he opts out, or re-sign him as a free agent (Phoenix still can give him the longest deal and the biggest raises, remember). Bottom line, the Suns have enough options remaining that they didn't need to give up on a playoff team to get pennies on the dollar in return.


                    Would that Monta Ellis to Memphis deal have made any sense?

                    Supposedly the Memphis Grizzlies offered O.J. Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet to the Warriors for Ellis. We don't know yet if this was one of owner Michael Heisley's ill-conceived ideas ("We already tried the old Iverson; let's try the new one!"). What we do know are two things: (1) It made no sense that Memphis offered this, and (2) it made no sense that the Warriors turned it down.

                    The Warriors have convinced themselves that Ellis is a big star, but he's not. He's a combo guard who shoots a lot without being terribly effective. And while he creates lots of middlingly accurate opportunities for himself, he creates very few for others. In an offense in which most of his buckets come on run-outs and as a secondary option, he's devastating; witness his work with the Warriors as a complement to Baron Davis. As a first option, however, Ellis is a black hole that sucks the life out of the offense.

                    It's no accident that Golden State plays so dramatically better when he's not on the court. On Sunday night, for instance, Atlanta outscored the Warriors by 15 with Ellis on the court, but Golden State routed Atlanta by 19 in the eight minutes he sat. Ellis scored a team-high 26 points, but used 28 possessions to get them and shared only four assists; that's a fairly normal night for him.

                    Why the Grizzlies would want this type of player when they already have a problem with too much one-on-one play is a mystery. So is the salary-cap math. Mayo is a true 2 who is signed through 2012 at less than half the money Ellis makes. Thabeet evens the salaries in the trade for cap purposes, and while I realize he's -- how can we put this kindly? -- developing ... the fact is he's a 7-footer who leads the league in blocks per minute. Even if the Grizzlies decided he was deadweight, he could be off their books after 2011 (so could Hamed Haddadi if he'd been included, as some reports suggested), which is more than can be said for Ellis, who makes $11 million a year through 2014.

                    Either way the Warriors would have come away with a better roster and a better cap situation. Mayo hasn't been quite as productive as Ellis, but in terms of PER he's not far off. He's also two years younger, a better defender, and a better fit with Stephen Curry. The more I look at it, the more perplexed I am. I have no idea why Memphis offered this trade, and no idea why Golden State turned it down.


                    Why didn't Miami do any deals?

                    In retrospect the Heat might wish they did, given that so many teams have opened cap space to make a run at Dwyane Wade. In the end there was a not-so-serious pursuit of Stoudemire and eleventh-hour talks about Carlos Boozer that may have been window dressing; it's possible the Heat talked just to convince Wade that they were serious about getting him help.

                    Additionally, the Heat are a tax team. You'd think if they weren't going to spend up they'd at least spend down, since they needed to cut only about $3 million to get under the tax. But they never found the right deal to get them under, especially after the Grizzlies (who had a Dorell Wright deal in their back pocket since at least January) decided to use their open cap slot on Ronnie Brewer instead.

                    That wasn't the only option, however. Miami could have paid somebody to take James Jones, for instance (the Heat would have had to bring back a lesser contract), or traded Quentin Richardson to Oklahoma City for Matt Harpring; several other possible options didn't involve Wright and didn't infringe on the Heat's 2010 cap-space hoard. Perhaps they looked at all these possibilities and didn't find any of them to their liking, but it still surprised me.

                    As a result, the Heat didn't get under the tax and didn't "pre-spend" their 2010 cap space on Stoudemire or Boozer. Heading into Thursday's deadline, I was all but certain they'd do one or the other. Instead, they're in about the worst place possible: a middle-of-the-road team that's paying the luxury tax anyway.


                    Why did Houston end up with all those assets, and not anybody else?

                    And now we get to what are the two biggest unanswered questions from the trade deadline: How was it that the Rockets, armed with only Tracy McGrady's expiring contract and Carl Landry's cap-friendly one, walked away from the trade deadline with the best haul of anybody ... by far?

                    In retrospect, this is puzzling. Houston wasn't the only team with enough expiring contracts and luxury-tax room to take on Jared Jeffries, nor were the Rockets the only team with a star player on an expiring deal who could have helped the Knicks immediately.

                    What the Rockets were was (A) persistent, and (B) clever. And that makes them stand out in relation to their partners in this deal.

                    Consider the Kings, for instance. They had a coveted star in Kevin Martin, $13 million in expiring contracts belonging to Kenny Thomas, Sergio Rodriguez, Hilton Armstrong, Ime Udoka and Sean May, and $1.6 million in cap room to do an unbalanced trade. They should have been controlling the entire game on deadline day.

                    Unfortunately, they didn't choose to play. Sacramento didn't let teams know Martin was available, and in fact insisted he wasn't available; unlike Phoenix with Stoudemire, the Kings have no idea if Houston's offer was the best one they could have had. In fact, there's considerable evidence they could have done much better -- possibly by bypassing the Rockets entirely.

                    Consider, for starters, what would have been the perfect home for Martin: Boston. The Kings could have sent Martin and little-used Andres Nocioni to the Celtics for Ray Allen and a first-round pick, and cleared $18 million in cap room (the Celtics, given their current time horizon, would have blurted out yes to this offer in a nanosecond).

                    They then could have used Allen and Kenny Thomas in a deal with the Knicks and walked away with the exact same trove of assets that the Rockets did. If so, Sacramento wouldn't have Landry, but look at what they'd have instead: Jordan Hill, New York's 2012 first-rounder, Boston's 2011 first-rounder, the right to swap picks with New York in 2011 (admittedly, an item of more value to Houston given the two clubs' likely records next season), and the same cap room they cleared with the Martin trade.

                    The only reason they don't have those assets, it would appear, is that they didn't ask. While the Kings fiddled, Houston forced the action and squeezed all it could from New York. When the Knicks wouldn't flinch, the Rockets scrambled to get alternate deals in place: first an all-smoke, no-fire rumor with Chicago, and then a late deal with Sacramento that both pried Martin free and thrust the Knicks into action.

                    That story echoes a fairly constant background noise that's been heard about Sacramento in recent years. The Kings have a small front office and nearly everybody in it has been there forever; one gets the impression not that they've lost their basketball acumen, but that they aren't putting in the legwork anymore.

                    A series of lazy deals -- giving Beno Udrih the full midlevel rather than checking out the point guard market, or signing Francisco Garcia to a ridiculous $35 million extension -- were the first indicators, and this is the latest. Sacramento made an OK deal with Martin -- I gave the Kings a B-plus on the merits of the trade itself -- but the Kings had the assets to put together a great deal and failed.

                    The reason they didn't isn't because the Rockets had some master computer program that outsmarted everybody. No, this had a more simple cause: The Kings got outhustled.

                    The irony here is that a dozen years ago the Kings were the ones outworking other teams to unearth good deals. They were the ones discovering a trove of hidden talent in Europe (Peja Stojakovic, Hedo Turkoglu) and beating the bushes to pluck players like Jon Barry, Scot Pollard and Doug Christie off the scrap heap. And the last time they traded a star shooting guard, they didn't come away with Carl Landry: They got Chris Webber.

                    The Kings weren't the only ones who sold themselves short, by the way. Several other NBA execs were disappointed they hadn't been told more openly of Martin's availability, feeling they had the goods to make a substantial offer for his services. Boston was a perfect fit, but by no means the only one.

                    Thus, we get to perhaps the greatest unknown of this year's trade season: What contender might have been able to win the Martin sweepstakes had such an event been held, and how might that have altered the coming postseason?
                    I agree with his take on Ellis, but this isn't a particularly good article.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                      I don't buy his argument that you get good value for guys by shopping them Amare-style. I think you need to make them available in a "it's a business, nobody is untouchable" sense but nothing more than that.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                        The thing about rebuilding OKC's way, is just that. You may end up in another city.

                        I don't want that.


                        Cordobes, how is my boy Marquis Daniels doing this year when he's been healthy? Has his passing been good, his scoring? How do you think Nate is going to fit in? Do you think Eddie was more valuable to the C's than Nate might be?
                        "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                        Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                          Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                          Cordobes, how is my boy Marquis Daniels doing this year when he's been healthy? Has his passing been good, his scoring?
                          When healthy he's been the best Celtics bench player by far and one of their most consistent players this season. Boston is a much better team with a legit 6th man like Daniels around and I think the way they play with and without him even when he doesn't play well shows that. His scoring has been stellar in terms of efficiency, I think he's having a career year. I'd like to see him shooting the ball more, but with guys like Tony Allen, Wallace and House around him he's been acting more as a play-maker/opportunistic scorer (which is very unfortunate, considering he's the best shot-maker of that crew by far). No complains about Daniels from me; as long as he stays healthy he's been a huge addition for the BAE.


                          Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                          How do you think Nate is going to fit in? Do you think Eddie was more valuable to the C's than Nate might be?
                          No, I think this was a trade that will probably improve Boston because, and only because, House has been showing signs of his age this season. I loved House as a player, he was spectacular for most of his tenure in Boston, but his shooting, his off-the-ball game and especially his defense have decline quite a bit from where they were just one year ago. I said a couple of months ago he was playing his way out of Boston next season but it was even earlier than I expected.

                          One year ago, I'd take House steady play and outside shooting over Robinson's shot-creation, scoring and unfocused play. But House decline+Ray Allen decline as a playmaker made this a good swap. I think Robinson will fit very well in the regular season rotation; for the playoffs, I'll need to see how Doc uses him. I don't like the idea of playing him and Rondo together for extended minutes.

                          Comment


                          • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                            Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                            The thing about rebuilding OKC's way, is just that. You may end up in another city.
                            Oh jeez.

                            The team was sold to a guy hell bent on moving a team to his city, and they had a terrible arena with a bad lease. Their rebuilding had nothing to do with them moving.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                              Had they not been so bad, would they have still moved? Out of curiousity, not arguing or disagreeing.

                              Maybe I should have put it this way; if we tried to suck really really bad for 3-5 years for a Kevin Durant, we wouldn't be in Indiana much longer. Could you imagine 3-4 more years of this? I'd die.
                              Last edited by Thesterovic; 02-23-2010, 07:07 PM.
                              "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                              Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 09-10 NBA Random Thoughts part VI: Return of the Jedi (again)

                                I was reading a couple of threads about trade deadline deals. Not bumping them, but in my view Charlotte and Minnesota did 2 small deals that can prove to be excellent in a couple of years.

                                Tyrus Thomas and Darko Milicic are two guys who have very strong opinions of who they are as basketball players... and they're completely wrong.

                                They both need the right coach and environment to break that down and then building them back up the right way. I suspect it's too late for Milicic and not too late for Thomas, but I may be wrong.

                                Thomas and Milicic have excellent potential as defenders, rebounders and as low-maintenance, efficient, bread'n'butter offensive players.

                                Still, the Wolves are a nice spot for Milicic - him + Love/Jefferson is a very good fit and listening to Rambis it seems he knows what he needs to do with Darko. The Bobcats are a very good fit for Thomas but an even better one would be the Spurs - Thomas is exactly the kind of player they need to put next to Duncan in the final years of his career (and he'd be an equally good fit next to Granger and Hibbert, btw).

                                Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                                I don't buy his argument that you get good value for guys by shopping them Amare-style. I think you need to make them available in a "it's a business, nobody is untouchable" sense but nothing more than that.
                                Yeah, I think his argument to criticize Petrie and pump up Morey is quite absurd. The thesis that the Kings told to the other teams except the Rockets that Martin was unavailable is pretty difficult to believe. In fact, Ainge admitted he had lengthy talks with the Kings, so what happened was that either the Cs didn't want that deal or the Kings preferred the Rockets one (I have no idea why he believes that Hill and a couple of late 1st rounders are necessarily more valuable than Landry - it can go both ways).

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

                                Apparently the Nets are offering Coach K a salary over $10 millions per year, which would put him ahead of Phil Jackson, who's the highest paid coach in the NBA history. Not bad for a rookie coach - although I think it's safe to say that Coach K's recruiting lure, more than his coaching acumen, is what the Nets are willing to pay for. Mike Krzyzewski is saying money isn't everything and that he doesn't plan to leave Duke. We'll see.

                                In others Nets related news, they'll play in Newark the next two seasons (or until they move to Brooklyn).
                                Last edited by cordobes; 02-23-2010, 07:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X