Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
What difference does it make if Hinrich has a 2nd year on his contract. There is going to be a lockout next year and it won't be paid anyway. Then after the lockout if Hinrich's 010-011 season was good, you re-sign him at less money than he's making now. It's like trading for an expiring contract when the 2nd year is a lockout.
AND yes, I'm a firm believer there is going to be a lock out in 011-012.
IMO, Hinrich isn't going to be available in a trade, but if he was for Murphy, I'd be in favor. It gives the Pacers what Bird wants which is a vet PG. It takes Jimmy's crutch, Murphy, away; so it gives 3 different young'ns the opportunity to get good PT for development. It's not like this team is going to be that great anyway under Jimmy as the coach.
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.
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](https://www.pacersdigest.com/core/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
![laugh](https://www.pacersdigest.com/core/images/smilies/laugh.gif)
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
Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Collapse
X
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by Hicks View PostIYO, who is that player, or who are those players?
But, before even naming a player, more important considerations are:
1. What are the attributes that we expect from our PG?
2a. Are the player and his attributes suited for the present JOB-dominated ludicrous system?
2b. Are the player and his attributes adaptable to almost any system of play that is not influenced by JOB?
There are so many attributes to consider. Some that I want in no particular order: vision, distribution/delivery, handles, hitting shots when left open, non-denomination of the ball, pnr abilities, penetration ability, fast-break capable AND half-court capable, usually a pass-first mentality. An attribute very high on my list is the ability to prevent the opposing PG from penetrating into the post, to make it difficult for the opposing PG to deliver the ball into the post and better than average ability to defend the pnr.
I personally think Hinrich has many of these abilities. That is why I support his aquisiton.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by ChicagoJ View PostPlease don't.
After you disappeared from PD for a season, I was worried that you'd already done so!
So, what's up with the kind words? We've spent an entire thread mostly disagreeing with each other (something unusual as I recall), and now you throw a spoonful of sugar my direction. But hey, I won't let my guard down... I'm still going to have to stick with my differing opinion.... lol
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by ChicagoJ View PostLook, I'm okay with trading for a long-term contract on a PG that we like. I just don't think that player is Hinrich.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by beast23 View PostBecause, jeesh, if JOB is somehow extended, we will all shoot ourselves.
After you disappeared from PD for a season, I was worried that you'd already done so!
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by danman View PostGuess it depends on your philosophy. You could reach out for guys like Hinrich and Horford because they're the best available at the moment that might go for a small market team.
Personally, if I were GM, I wouldn't. Hinrich and Horford aren't going to get you to the promised land. Use your space under the cap for the deals that come your way. Pick out players that are perfect for your system. Most of all, don't try to solve every problem with a stop gap the moment your credit card has some space.
I know fans are sick of patience, but impatience will get you a 44 win team with hard to trade players for years.
As for the bolded statement, not to be a wise-***, but you do realize that any player that we select now will probably find himself playing in a different system in the 2011-2012 season. Because, jeesh, if JOB is somehow extended, we will all shoot ourselves.
Consequently, you might argue that, since the coach and the system will probably be different, we should wait on player acquisition. But there just aren't enough quality players available in 2011, so we need to obtain players that not only fit the JOB system, but are adaptable as well.
It seems that a great deal of the risk in what players to acquire would be made far easier if Bird would just pull the plug and replace JOB now. As you suggest, building a better team is more than just using the expiring contracts and the impending cap space to go out and acquire talented players. It must consider all aspects of the total package, and that includes the coach as well. But I suspect that should be left for another thread/topic.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by danman View PostI know fans are sick of patience, but impatience will get you a 32 to 36 win team with hard to trade players for years.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Look, I'm okay with trading for a long-term contract on a PG that we like. I just don't think that player is Hinrich.
If there's a PG that we like, pretty good chance that his current team likes him too and will command a lopsided trade to pry that player away.
We're a year away from making a lopsided trade that doesn't put us into several more years of salary Hell.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by Anthem View PostRight. And it's not like the list of FAs is that great anyway.
I think Kirk is better than anybody we'd be able to sign next year. We can make the trade now. We'd still have enough space to offer Horford the max.
Why not go for it?
If the Pacers believed that the only use of their expiring contracts is to gain cap space to sign 2011 free agents, then we are doomed to have several more years of mediocre teams and W-L records.
Jay makes a good point. We have not had a great deal of success in signing top shelf free agents. The Pacers will probably use some of the contracts to simply expire in order to reduce their overall payroll for a few years to come. But building on the point that Jay did make is that I believe that any success we might have in obtaining any of the top shelf players will come either through a trade for the player already under contract or by offering a max or near-max contract to a free agent.
So many here on the board argue that we are unable to sign the top players, so my premise regarding trades apparently would be viewed as correct. Following along that line, it then is apparent that we don't have to wait until the summer of 2011 to get that process started. The opportunities we have now through the February trade deadline are just as important. I would argue that the present opportunities are even more important than those of the summer of 2011 because there are very few teams that are in our position with either cap space or several expiring contracts with which to deal. Less competition usually leads to more success.
The important thing is that we arrive at September, 2011 with a far better team than we have today. So, I am in agreement with Anthem in stating that when a player might available that fits the mold of what we need, then we should pull the trigger and use some of our assets to get the player. If that means that we use one of our expiring contracts to get it done, then I'm all for it.Last edited by beast23; 07-16-2010, 01:03 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Guess it depends on your philosophy. You could reach out for guys like Hinrich and Horford because they're the best available at the moment that might go for a small market team.
Personally, if I were GM, I wouldn't. Hinrich and Horford aren't going to get you to the promised land. Use your space under the cap for the deals that come your way. Pick out players that are perfect for your system. Most of all, don't try to solve every problem with a stop gap the moment your credit card has some space.
I know fans are sick of patience, but impatience will get you a 44 win team with hard to trade players for years.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by CableKC View PostI disagree. I think the Wizards did get him to be a very solid ComboGuard to backup Wall and Arenas. If anything he's insurance for insurance just in case he gets injures again.
By the way KH would look great in a Pacer uni...
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by pacers74 View PostWhat PG are we going to get next summer? Don't even try to name Parker. He will not be here. Hinrich may not be on the level with CP3 and D. Williams, but he is pretty good. He can still run a team pretty well.
But the more baffling thought is giving Al Horford the max.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by count55 View PostWhy in the name of God would you do that?
What PG are we going to get next summer? Don't even try to name Parker. He will not be here. Hinrich may not be on the level with CP3 and D. Williams, but he is pretty good. He can still run a team pretty well.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by Anthem View PostRight. And it's not like the list of FAs is that great anyway.
I think Kirk is better than anybody we'd be able to sign next year. We can make the trade now. We'd still have enough space to offer Horford the max.
Why not go for it?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?
Originally posted by beast23 View PostYou make a point about salary. I would rather not have to take a player back that has 2 or more years on his contract as well. But I very much disagree with part of your argument.
I believe you think that because Hinrich was relegated to a backup to Rose and now probably to Wall, that he should somehow be considered a career backup PG. That simply isnt't the case. These two players were top picks and their teams would naturally commit to playing them immediately. Hinrich would be a likely starter for half or more of the teams in the league.
I believe that most would agree that Mark Jackson was the best PG the Pacers have ever had. My personal pick for our #2 would be Don Buse, probably a better all-around player than Jackson and a capable distributor, but one whose vision was not quite as good as Jackson's and whose game was not as "flashy". One could argue either way that Hinrich's overall game is on par with either these two. But I don't believe that anyone could offer another former Pacer at the PG position whose all-around game is on par with Hinrich.
Is 8M too much for Hinrich? Yes, if you were going to relegate him to a backup position it would be. I totally agree that we've been there, done that and that simply isn't a wise thing to do.
But then again, is it wise to bring in a player, pay him 5M a year for 3-4 years who simply doesn't have the overall abilities to be "the solution"? I believe that to be an even bigger debacle because it simply continues the chain of mistakes we have made at PG.
Hinrich is a damn good point guard. He also offers something that we haven't had in quite a while at the position. In addition to his wealth of talents at the position, he can play very good defense. And, it seems like a lifetime ago that we have been able to pressure the ball at the point.
Is that worth 15M to me over 2 years? Hell, yes. After that, perhaps Hinrich could be signed for something you might consider more reasonable. Perhaps 6M per season? But by the end of that 2 years, I would doubt very much if even you would object to his being re-signed at or very near his current salary.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: