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

Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

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

  • #46
    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

    Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
    While somewhat understandable in their frustration, guys suggesting the team "tank" have NO grasp of the business end of this equation.
    OR of the precarious nature of the Pacers in Indy at this point in time.
    Actually its the other way around regarding who has no grasp of the business end of the equation.

    The precarious position the Pacers are in is directly related to the continual mediocre results they have been producing for some time.

    Now while they have managed to purge themselves of most of the bad apples, they are at the point where they need a serious injection of major talent. And given their situation, theres no better way to get that injection than with a top draft choice in a draft that most are saying should be very good.

    There should be a great level of excitement surrounding the team if they manage to get a top 5 draft choice-whether it be wondering what player they might draft or if they might package it in a trade-either way there would be a much higher level of excitement and opportunities surrounding a top 5 pick versus drafting 12-18 again.

    You then couple that with the expirings they will have and the moves they likely will make with those and you are talking about a much different state of mind for most fans in less than 7 or 8 months from now.

    And its not like they will have to do anything significantly different right now. Theyre only a couple of games away from the 3rd worst record in the league-a position they held only about a week ago.
    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

      Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
      Actually its the other way around regarding who has no grasp of the business end of the equation.

      The precarious position the Pacers are in is directly related to the continual mediocre results they have been producing for some time.

      Now while they have managed to purge themselves of most of the bad apples, they are at the point where they need a serious injection of major talent. And given their situation, theres no better way to get that injection than with a top draft choice in a draft that most are saying should be very good.

      There should be a great level of excitement surrounding the team if they manage to get a top 5 draft choice-whether it be wondering what player they might draft or if they might package it in a trade-either way there would be a much higher level of excitement and opportunities surrounding a top 5 pick versus drafting 12-18 again.

      You then couple that with the expirings they will have and the moves they likely will make with those and you are talking about a much different state of mind for most fans in less than 7 or 8 months from now.

      And its not like they will have to do anything significantly different right now. Theyre only a couple of games away from the 3rd worst record in the league-a position they held only about a week ago.
      I could go on for a few pages with the particulars of how wrong you are,
      Small market teams are so fringe in the NBA right now that even winning, we "might" be in trouble.



      *removed*

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
        To tank or not to tank ....................

        What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

        1) Get rid of Murphy. Be sure to get a pick/prospect in the package. Troy simply isn't going to be a part of the Pacers future, so why not get something while the getting is good ??

        2) Get rid of Foster. There's interest out there. Again - pick/prospect in return.

        3) Get rid of Ford. Sorry - I got carried away. Nobody wants him.

        4) Play Roy, Rush, AJ, McBob, Solo ............ play the young kids. See what they've got. There might be some good things that happen, there might not be. There's only one way to find out.

        If by doing that, the Pacers wind up with a bad enough record to get in the lottery, the so be it. If they produce and make the playoffs, well, good.

        Make the future now. If you want to call that tanking, then go right ahead. This charade of trying to make something out of this current group when we all know it's not the future of the team fools nobody. Well, maybe a few.
        THIS! This is exactly what I want to see happen. I hate the word "tanking" or losing on purpose and that's not what I want us to do either. I want us to develop our current players and that will by effect probably mean losing some games we might have otherwise lost. Too bad then.

        One thing though. I prefer to keep Foster around if possible as pretty much the only veteran frontcourt specialist, a great proffesional and an advertisement board to a part of the fanbase.
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
          It is not out of bounds, but hasn't the topic been discussed to death over the years. it just bores me anymore
          It will continue to be discussed as long as we are missing the playoffs by a few games and getting a late lottery pick every year.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

            We are stuck in a time warp. We cant suck bad enough to get a high pick and we can't be good enough to get past the first round.
            http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
            "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              I just read this thread but I argued a similar point to what Seth posted in a different thread. The letting the season slip makes short term sense but in the long term its almost corporate suicide. You think the people that pay for the high price seats would keep purchasing them if that was the approach. Seriously whats next years slogan. "We sucked for this 5th pick" Come see what he can do on this sucky team".
              You act like we're choosing between being a good, relevant team or being a bad, irrelevant team. In reality, we're choosing between being a bad, irrelevant team with a slim chance of landing a great prospect (#10-15) vs. being a really bad, irrelevant team with a good chance at drafting a great prospect (top-five).

              The later is most certainly better for the franchise long term, and I'd argue for the short term as well. After all, the upcoming draft will draw far more fan interest if we're picking in an elite position rather than our usual ho-hum position.

              Cinotimz already addressed corporate side of things, so I wont bother with that.


              Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
              Did the lack of effort put forth by the Colts teach you guys anything? Even a team that won the most regular season games this decade couldn't get a "pass" with these fans. What makes you think a bad Pacer team is going to get a pass?
              The only thing the Colts have taught me regarding this subject is that it's really nice to have high draft picks. Since 1994 the Colts have had three top-five picks. Those ended up being Marshall Faulk (#2, '94), Peyton Manning (#1 in '98), and Edgerrin James (#4 in '99). This being the NFL, which has a far higher rate of top-five picks being busts than does the NBA.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                This being the NFL, which has a far higher rate of top-five picks being busts than does the NBA.
                I don't think that's accurate at all. The NBA Draft is much more of a crapshoot than the NFL draft.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                  Steve Emtman, Jeff George, Quentin Coryatt, Trev Alberts, Art Schlicter...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                    Originally posted by iPACER View Post
                    Steve Emtman, Jeff George, Quentin Coryatt, Trev Alberts, Art Schlicter...
                    Michael Olowokandi, Darko Milicic, Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Kwame Brown, Stromile Swift, Jonathan Bender...we can play this game all day.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                      JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Charles Rogers, Courtney Brown, Peter Warrick, Gaines Adams, Mike Williams, Robert Gallery, Cadillac Williams, Darren McFadden, Dewayne Robertson, Gerard Warren...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                        You act like we're choosing between being a good, relevant team or being a bad, irrelevant team. In reality, we're choosing between being a bad, irrelevant team with a slim chance of landing a great prospect (#10-15) vs. being a really bad, irrelevant team with a good chance at drafting a great prospect (top-five).
                        You act like the only way to get better is to get worse.

                        Of all the teams to follow and have that opinion, you pick the Indy .500 who lingered in the middle TWICE and then went to the ECF. Bob Hill's boys were "stuck" and that core group (with only Smits from long before the .500 days being a top 10 guy) went to FIVE ECFs in 7 years. FIVE IN SEVEN, including a Finals.

                        They didn't tank. By your definition they were screwed without tanking to get a top pick.

                        I mean this debate being held on PACERS Digest given the team's own history is just a joke. The ONLY time they have been title contenders was following several years of mediocrity and no high draft picks.

                        The one time they traded for one it became Bender, which actually hurt them since it cost them Tony when he still had AS seasons left in him.


                        Here's the proof, we play an actual game:

                        On this side you get McCloud, Person, Kellogg, Stipo, Smits

                        We get Jackson (not a top 10 even for Knicks), Reggie, Detlef (traded for an aging, not young Herb), Dale, Tony (2nd round pick no less).

                        Should be a close one. I'll throw in Dunleavy for you (yep, top 5 guy), but I get Granger at #17.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                          I don't see any problem in the burn our guys are getting right now. AJ is getting ample minutes, Roy and Brandon are either starting or getting good minutes, Solo is backing up Roy on most occasions and Tyler is getting back into the swing of things. The odd man out is Josh.

                          That is a very good ratio of young players getting time. Even with Murphy on the roster!
                          I agree. I'd play Josh more right now and Solo/Tyler less, but if you get the Troy/Z deal done then Z gets less time than Troy and that frees up more for those 3 anyway. I'd hope Josh would play then.

                          Otherwise it's not too shabby a rotation lately. Head fell out with injury but as long as he returns to only modest minutes unless he's scorching then that should be okay too.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                            Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                            Your problem is you're arguing from an exaggerated, strawman version of what the pro-draft people are saying. We're not saying that drafting in the top-five means automatically landing a perennial all-star nor are we saying that drafting outside of the top-10 means you can't find an impact player. We simply recognize that you need talent to win and the easiest way to acquire talent, especially for a team low on trading assets and with no cap space, is through great drafting. That's a lot easier to accomplish when you're at or near the top of the draft and are given the 'pick of the litter'.

                            It's also not a situation of "#1 or bust" - John Wall would be great, obviously, but there's still Derrick Favors, Evan Turner, and Ed Davis, amongst others.
                            I just showed that you DON'T get great talent by drafting, it's NOT the easiest way to do it. The Celtics have 4 great players, only 1 was acquired with a top 9 draft pick. Jefferson, the key to the KG trade was NOT a top 10. You didn't need a top 10 to get the talent to trade for KG.

                            Please directly address the Celtics issue and the Lakers getting Shaq/Kobe without a top 10 pick and WITHOUT TANKING.

                            The Celts and Lakers have titles, the Cavs and Nugs do not. Miami got one but they are back to struggling a bit while the Lakers and Celts are poised to head to the Finals again. So you've got 3 teams that lost enough to get high picks, and 2 teams that got most/all of their talent without top picks.

                            The Pacers got a huge bump by drafting great outside the top 10 - Reggie, Dale, Tony. And by trading well - Herb for Det, Dampier for Mullin, Jax for finished vets.

                            Pistons top picks? Well there was Darko. But TRADES and signing a middle of the road FA like Billups was at the time had the huge impact. Prince was helpful, not the main key, and not a top 10 pick anyway. Getting Sheed for free helped a ton, didn't require a top 5 pick.


                            Give me the list of teams that won by tanking? You think it's the Spurs, but here's my counter. Manu and Parker were both just as critical as Duncan and neither were anywhere close to a top 10 pick.

                            I don't see any team that just tanked and that did the trick. I see A LOT OF TEAMS that tried this and still haven't got up off the floor.


                            Go ahead and run the team like the Warriors, Clippers, Bobcats, Bulls, TWolves, Kings, Bucks...

                            Heck, the Kitties are getting off this list but here's the joke on your draft theory - the key to the turnaround wasn't top pick Gerald Henderson who's been benched almost all year. The key was TRADING for Jackson.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                              One more thing. We need a top 5 or whatever pick to help out who? Granger. And Roy.

                              So it sounds like another #17 pick should do the trick. Or just take one in the 2nd round and get another Price.

                              You do improve in the draft, but history shows you don't need to stink during the year, you just need to not stink with your scouting. There will be impact guys outside the top 10 this year, and there will be some non-impact guys that go inside the top 10 to help make that happen. And at least some of us will know this on draft night, not 5 years later.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate

                                Celtics (3) - Larry Bird (6th, '78), Kevin McHale (3rd, '80)
                                Lakers (5) - Magic Johnson (1st, '79), James Worthy (1st, '82)
                                Pistons (2) - Isiah Thomas (2nd, '81)
                                Bulls (6) - Michael Jordan (3rd, '84), Pippen (5th, '87)
                                Rockets (2) - Hakeem Olajuwon (1st, '84),
                                Spurs (4) - Tim Duncan (1st, '97)
                                Heat (1) - Dwyane Wade (5th, '03)

                                '80 - Lakers
                                '81 - Celtics
                                '82 - Lakers

                                '83 - 76ers
                                '84 - Celtics
                                '85 - Lakers
                                '86 - Celtics
                                '87 - Lakers
                                '88 - Lakers

                                '89 - Pistons
                                '90 - Pistons

                                '91 - Bulls
                                '92 - Bulls
                                '93 - Bulls

                                '94 - Rockets
                                '95 - Rockets

                                '96 - Bulls
                                '97 - Bulls
                                '98 - Bulls

                                '99 - Spurs

                                '00 - Lakers
                                '01 - Lakers
                                '02 - Lakers
                                '03 - Spurs
                                '04 - Pistons
                                '05 - Spurs
                                '06 - Heat
                                '07 - Spurs

                                '08 - Celtics
                                '09 - Lakers

                                There's 23 of the past 30 champions being lead by their own top-six draft pick(s). What's interesting is that even the championship teams that didn't win with their own high draft picks (top-6) won with other teams'. The Lakers had Shaq (1st, '92) for the first three and Pau Gasol (3rd, '01) and Lamar Odom (4th, '99) for the fourth. The Celtics last title had Garnett (5th, '95) and Ray Allen (5th, '96). The Pistons had Billups (3rd, '97) and Sheed (4th, '95). The last team to win an NBA championship without a top-six NBA draft pick playing a major role would be the 82-83 76ers. Even then you had Moses Malone, who was picked #5 in the ABA dispersal draft and Andrew Toney (8th, '80).

                                There's no question, the best of the best, the true megastars and NBA champions are almost always drafted near or at the top of the draft. The next generation of champions will likely be led by Dwight Howard and LeBron James, with Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, and a few other guys (Melo, Wall, etc.) maybe getting in on the action - all top-five picks.


                                That's championships and championship talent aka legends. If we're just looking at All-Star level talent, here's the list of 2009 All-Stars...

                                Original Team
                                Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat
                                LeBron James, Cleveland Cavaliers
                                Dwight Howard, Orlando Magic
                                Danny Granger, Indiana Pacers
                                Paul Pierce, Boston Celtics
                                Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors
                                Chris Paul, New Orleans Hornets
                                Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Lakers
                                Amar'e Stoudemire, Phoenix Suns
                                Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
                                Yao Ming, Houston Rockets
                                Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs
                                Brandon Roy, Portland Trail Blazers
                                Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas Mavericks
                                David West, New Orleans Hornets

                                New Team
                                Allen Iverson, Detroit Pistons
                                Kevin Garnett, Boston Celtics
                                Ray Allen, Boston Celtics
                                Devin Harris, New Jersey Nets
                                Joe Johnson, Atlanta Hawks
                                Jameer Nelson, Orlando Magic
                                Chauncey Billups, Denver Nuggets
                                Mo Williams, Cleveland Cavaliers
                                Rashard Lewis, Orlando Magic
                                Pau Gasol, Los Angeles Lakers
                                Shaquille O'Neal, Phoenix Suns

                                That's 15 '09 All-Stars still with their original team and 11 with new teams (including Steve Nash, who actually ended up back where he started in Phoenix). Not only does the 'original team' group have more players, they have higher caliber players. They're full of young superstars, whereas the 'new team' group is almost entirely guys who are clearly lesser talents or are well past their prime. Only Joe Johnson, Pau Gasol and (if we're feeling generous) Rashard Lewis are at least second-tier and not past their prime.

                                This is just late-night rambling on my part, with no real point. One thing it does seem to illustrate is that if you want a great talent in their prime, it's through the draft. Yes, you can trade for and/or sign old guys and third wheel-level guys, but if you want greatness, in its prime, you'll get it through the draft. Teams just aren't willing to let those type of guys go, and rightfully so. Also, eight of the 15 original teamers were top-six picks, and 11 of the 15 went top-10. The four that didn't? A high schooler (Kobe, 13th), foreigner (Parker, 28th) and Granger (17th) and West (18th). Another Kobe situation is highly unlikely, not with the one-year rule. If Kobe had been forced to go to college for a season, my guess is he would've went #2 in '97, behind Tim Duncan (not a bad 1/2).

                                To make a long story short... give me the top draft pick (even if it's not #1) over a 1st round drubbing any day of the week.

                                If we lucked into Wall, I honestly believe he and Granger (along with a strong supporting cast) could be a championship-level duo in time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X