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

2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

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

  • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    That would be awesome, really, take some scoring load off of Danny. I wonder who the Clippers would want at #10? I see Eric Gordon as a big step in the right direction. Still work to be done, but a nice get, I think.

    21 years old, doesn't turn 22 until Christmas.

    6'3" 222 lbs

    16.9 ppg
    3.0 assists
    2.6 boards
    45% FG %
    37% 3 point %

    62 games last year at 36 minutes per game

    Numbers were flat from year one to year two, but not a big deal, I don't think.
    Yep. Plus ask yourself if EJ at 21 is in this draft, where is he getting selected? I'm saying top 5. Definitely before Wes Johnson IMO and probably battling with Favors and Cousins for the 3 spot. So would you trade Rush and the number 10 for the third pick in this draft? I probably would. That would seem like a pretty solid deal for us. I like Rush a lot, but what has he really shown us? And the number 10 is unknown. I don't think it's like the greatest deal in the world for us, but it's not bad either. In fact, as has been mentioned, I'm not so sure the Clippers would be jumping at that move.

    Plus Gordon's been battling NBA defense's for two years, you put him back in this draft and I think you'd likely see him being regarded on Turner's level who is actually OLDER than Gordon by about two months. So yeah I think you could actually see Gordon being the number 2 pick in this draft, if he was coming out as a junior in college.


    Comment


    • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

      Originally posted by HanSolo View Post
      the realgm article was just henry's perceptions right? i didn't actually read the whole thing, just the blurb in the front. but from what i can gather nothings set in stone yet?
      Correct. I think a Kansas newspaper mentioned a couple weeks ago they had interest as well.

      But recall Terrance Williams last year said a very similar thing last year after his workout with the Warriors. Jordan Hill had dinner with Nellie and said he was told straight up that they would draft him if he were available at the #7 pick.

      Comment


      • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

        Didn't you guys chastise Bird last year for NOT trading back to still get his guy? The hypocrisy monster seems to have woken up. You wanted to trade back with the Bulls because we wanted to draft Hansborough. Instead Bird went with his guy at 13.
        I was on that wagon, or actually trade out for a similar pick this year instead.

        Of course I wanted to trade down and take something like Holiday AND Buddinger, or Young, or Blair as he fell. I didn't want Hans at all, and certainly not as high as the Pacers actual pick.

        But it should be clear that I'm in agreement with this attitude this year as well. No hypocrisy here, this team needs more than 1 talent improvement and there are lot of quality guys with at least 1-2 NBA caliber skills already proven, not wish list hopeful stuff, that are being rated out past 20th, even into the 2nd round.

        Heck, I'll let an undersized Booker get out there and bang people around for 15 minutes a game and make them know they played ball. Sure they'll get shots over him and he won't kick butt, but he'll take up fouls and not make you wish he wasn't out there. And you can add this help for a 35-40th pick.


        There are guys I'd be really happy with at 10, but if they got 2 guys for that #10 pick and they were the guys I'm looking for I'd be really thrilled.


        Guys you must replace
        Ford - ie, starting PG
        Watson - backup PG (at the least after this next season)
        Dun - backup scoring wing
        Troy - starting PF

        plus you could use 1 more front line guy to help even if you have Hibby, Solo, McBob and Hans all going. 4 is not enough and IMO 2 of those guys are very part time backups.

        So that's 5 guys and that's not upgrading Rush because I think the team can win with Rush as a starting SG, just not the regular #2 offensive player (not his game really).

        This is why I think they need a 2 for 1 if it's decent. Of course I wouldn't trade 10 for the 45th and 50th pick.

        Comment


        • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

          There are guys I'd be really happy with at 10, but if they got 2 guys for that #10 pick and they were the guys I'm looking for I'd be really thrilled.


          Guys you must replace
          Ford - ie, starting PG
          Watson - backup PG (at the least after this next season)
          Dun - backup scoring wing
          Troy - starting PF

          plus you could use 1 more front line guy to help even if you have Hibby, Solo, McBob and Hans all going. 4 is not enough and IMO 2 of those guys are very part time backups.

          So that's 5 guys and that's not upgrading Rush because I think the team can win with Rush as a starting SG, just not the regular #2 offensive player (not his game really).

          This is why I think they need a 2 for 1 if it's decent. Of course I wouldn't trade 10 for the 45th and 50th pick.
          You forgot Foster but for the most part I agree. The problem with this team is that it has "NO" #2 guy offensively. This is why I would rather trade our first and Rush for Gordon. Then we could use Troy and whomever for a quality pg.

          One thing to keep in mind Seth is that all those needs can't be addressed with just one draft.

          Comment


          • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

            I think that is pure speculation on the part of Dakich. It only makes sense that he makes up something based on the one player he knows.

            I would MUCH MUCH rather upgrade another position than SG. I like Rush, but at the same time am not under some spell that he can't be upgraded, but why waste assets improving positions of less need? That is what I don't get. EG is a solid young player and I like Indy's perspective on the deal really.

            Here's an analogy for this deal:

            You have a two year old car. You financed it... smart or not. You did it. You realize they just came out with a brand new car that instead of having 300 HP like your current car does, it has 350 HP. So what do you do, you go and trade in your current car for pennies on the dollar to obtain this new car that has more torque and a little better HP. And in doing so, you roll your huge loss on the trade in on the new loan for the new car. So not only are you giving up a good situation, you are paying way too much in order to do it. We are giving up a HUGE asset in the #10 pick for a marginal upgrade at SG.

            I don't think that EG will be vastly better than what Rush can be. We DESPERATELY need a PG and a PF. Whether the team feels that McRoberts and Hansborough can man the PF for years to come is one thing, but we still have a large vacancy at PG. If we are going to utilize the #10 let's get a MUCH MUCH bigger upgrade at PG and let Rush be our SG. Better yet, let's see what Rush can do without JOB and Murphy first before we trade him.
            "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

            Comment


            • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

              Saying that Rush + 10 for Eric Gordon is a steep price is ridiculous. Put Eric Gordon in this draft and he's easily a top 4 pick. Would Rush + 10 for the 4th pick be too steep a price to pay? I think not.

              And let's not pretend that Gordon isn't a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over Rush at the SG spot.
              Last edited by SMosley21; 06-09-2010, 05:42 PM.

              Comment


              • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                And let's not pretend that Gordon isn't a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over Rush at the SG spot.
                Depends on what you prioritize in a player. I will say that EG is better than Rush in a lot of areas, but there are some where Rush is a better player.

                I don't drink the IU kool aid that most of you do, so I shouldn't even be getting into this discussion on here.
                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                Comment


                • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                  Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                  Depends on what you prioritize in a player. I will say that EG is better than Rush in a lot of areas, but there are some where Rush is a better player.

                  I don't drink the IU kool aid that most of you do, so I shouldn't even be getting into this discussion on here.
                  I've learned not to argue it. Any player from Indiana is destined to be an All-Star it seems(Conely, Oden, Gordon, now Hayward). It's pointless to argue it at this point.

                  Is Eric Gordon a good player? Absolutely. Is he worth a top 3 pick in this draft? Not even close. He is an undersized SG who will likely be a good scorer on a decent team. Undersized teams don't usually find success. Gordon is a good defender for his size, but he can't do much against people 3-4 inches taller. Defense wins Championships, that's just how it is. I really shouldn't even bother with saying that anymore though.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                    Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                    Depends on what you prioritize in a player. I will say that EG is better than Rush in a lot of areas, but there are some where Rush is a better player.

                    I don't drink the IU kool aid that most of you do, so I shouldn't even be getting into this discussion on here.
                    I don't drink the IU kool aid either and I think that we are "slightly" ( but not steeply ) overpaying to get Gordon. Although I hate that BRush is very non-agressive on the Offensive end....I LOVE his defense and his 3pt shooting. Overall, yes....the better player is Gordon....but by how much? Enough to add a #10 pick?

                    I guess it depends on whose available at the 10 spot. If Udoh is gone by then? Sure, I'd do it....but if Udoh is available and he's one of the guys that we are targeting.......it would essentially be BRush+Udoh for Gordon...which ( for me ) gives me some pause as I like the defense that we would get from keeping the 2 of them.

                    Of course, we're talking about the "what if" scenario.....but I would say that I wouldn't consider a trade for Gordon under the current BRush+10 scenario until I know whose available at the 10 spot.

                    However, I do concede that there is the "allure" of somehow acquiring Gordon ( even at the cost of BRush and our only 1st round pick ) as he's more of an established scorer and ( more importantly ) the PR value of getting the "prodigal IU Son" back to Indy.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      I agree....I'd like a little bit more in return as we are giving up a solid prospect AND a draft pick while we are getting back a solid ( probably slightly better ) prospect.

                      I couldn't agree more. It's just too steep of a price, and this comes from someone that isn't a big Rush fan.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                        Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                        Is Eric Gordon a good player? Absolutely. Is he worth a top 3 pick in this draft? Not even close. He is an undersized SG who will likely be a good scorer on a decent team. Undersized teams don't usually find success. Gordon is a good defender for his size, but he can't do much against people 3-4 inches taller. Defense wins Championships, that's just how it is. I really shouldn't even bother with saying that anymore though.
                        To me, these are valid points and why I'm hesitant to automatically say "yes" without knowing whose available at the 10 spot. The question then becomes, is the value that we get from trading for Eric Gordon while sending BRush away worth the value of the #10 pick?

                        On top of that, without knowing what other possible deals/talks that the Pacers FO has had with other Teams that may involve "trading down" ( while keeping BRush )....it's difficult to say whether this is a good trade or not.

                        I guess my whole point is that I'm not ready to automatically say "yes, where do I sign to make it happen?" without knowing what else ( if anything ) is in play with the #10 spot.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          I couldn't agree more. It's just too steep of a price, and this comes from someone that isn't a big Rush fan.
                          I don't think it's a "steep" price to pay....in terms of overall value....I just look at this trade scenario and see that we're paying more to get our hands on Gordon.

                          Either way, I'm not entirely excited about this if this happens...but I'd be okay with it.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                            I don't think that EG will be vastly better than what Rush can be. We DESPERATELY need a PG and a PF. Whether the team feels that McRoberts and Hansborough can man the PF for years to come is one thing, but we still have a large vacancy at PG. If we are going to utilize the #10 let's get a MUCH MUCH bigger upgrade at PG and let Rush be our SG. Better yet, let's see what Rush can do without JOB and Murphy first before we trade him.
                            LMAO

                            I pray to God they are not that delusional
                            Sittin on top of the world!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                              I've learned not to argue it. Any player from Indiana is destined to be an All-Star it seems(Conely, Oden, Gordon, now Hayward). It's pointless to argue it at this point.

                              Is Eric Gordon a good player? Absolutely. Is he worth a top 3 pick in this draft? Not even close. He is an undersized SG who will likely be a good scorer on a decent team. Undersized teams don't usually find success. Gordon is a good defender for his size, but he can't do much against people 3-4 inches taller. Defense wins Championships, that's just how it is. I really shouldn't even bother with saying that anymore though.
                              Yes, and you love every player that comes from UNC. You have your biases just like everyone else.

                              Who is talking about Gordon being worth a top 3 pick? Where do you get that from?

                              And Gordon is a really good defender, he's probably not quite as good as Rush due to the height issue, but he stays in front of his man and does a solid job on bigger players. If you are going to preach this defense first thing, then you shouldn't rail against Gordon. His defense is very nearly on par with Rush, and he is a major upgrade on the offensive end of the court. Worth trading Rush+10? I'm not sure. I don't think a great deal of Brandon, and I don't think a great deal of the players available at #10, so I'd probably consider it. Though I have to say, it isn't my favorite made up trade scenario.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Chad Ford> Trade Winds starting to Swirl

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                Of the Granger-level Players that were given extensions a few years back, IMHO...Monta's contract isn't overpaid given his production. Compare his contract to Okafor, Deng, Jefferson and his isn't as bad as it could have been.

                                I've watched him play many games at Golden State and he isn't as bad as you portray him to be. His level of Knuckle-headedness does not get anywhere near the same level as ones that we have seen in the past.
                                To his credit, he plays for Golden State. It's not like he's in a situation or organization that places a high priority on character. I think there's a pretty decent chance that if you get him on a team that has a legit. chance to win and has a core of upstanding guys and a bit more consistent coach, a lot of that knuckleheadedness would disappear.

                                Wasn't he complaining last year about being the only guy on his team willing to play any defense?
                                "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                                - Salman Rushdie

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X