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

If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

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

  • #31
    Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

    Build a team around Granger ? Why would you build a team around a
    player who does little or nothing to make the guys around him better ?

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

      Originally posted by Hillman's 'Fro' View Post
      Build a team around Granger ? Why would you build a team around a
      player who does little or nothing to make the guys around him better ?
      because he is the only thing we got
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

        If the Pacers continue to struggle we just might find out our answers

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

          Let's hope we don't find out.

          Danny is a very loyal guy and I doubt he'll want out.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
            The reaction from most everybody (including me) at the time in the thread was that the Pacers got one of the more obvious steals in draft history.
            So what do you think about Paul George?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              I like Granger, but I'm not "in love" with Granger. If he wanted traded and the Pacers could get "good value" in exchange, then I'd be fine with it, BUT only if the Pacers could get "good value" in return. Nor do I want to have add other valuable assets to accomplish his request thus depleting the overall quality of the team to accomplish his wish.
              exactly my thoughts.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                The Chris Paul situation got me thinking: If our star player made it publicly known that he wanted out, how would us, as fans, react? I'd probably be a little taken aback by it, and no matter what happens from then on, I'd have lost a little respect for Danny and would never like him quite as much. Thoughts?
                Our last 'star' player wanted out. Not sure it's completely the same scenario, but JO didn't want to play here. My feeling was/is, I don't want anyone here that doesn't want to be here.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                  Danny is human too that may get frustrated and may think of going to other teams to win more, but I think he is classy enough not to do that. Last year we have seen him get frustrated in losing, but you don't hear him wanting to get to a more competitive team, so I trust that Danny demanding a trade publicly has very ow probability.

                  Just a thought, if you are Danny Granger, how would you feel if you know some Indy fans wanted you to be traded?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    That was my 1st thought... J/K.

                    I like Granger, but I'm not "in love" with Granger. If he wanted traded and the Pacers could get "good value" in exchange, then I'd be fine with it, BUT only if the Pacers could get "good value" in return. Nor do I want to have add other valuable assets to accomplish his request thus depleting the overall quality of the team to accomplish his wish.
                    Amen. I feel the same way. Just makes you wonder what kind of a deal could be made. I was thinking, historically, trading away the "face of the franchise", usually doesn't bode well for the franchise.

                    Off the top of my had, I thought about Garnett being traded for Al Jefferson, Gomes, Telfair, Gerald Green and Ratliff. Back then, Minn got seduced by that old bugaboo, "promise." Green and Telfair looked to be something really special. Jefferson was talented, but had some question marks. In hindsight, it's up to your own opinion how well that worked out.

                    Then I thought about Barkley for Tim Perry and Andrew Lang.

                    At that point, I thought I'd do a little research, rather than rely on memory and found this article that, if nothing esle, is interesting in seeing how blockbuster trades of a team's superstar turned out.

                    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-071222-23

                    Friday, December 21, 2007
                    Updated: December 24, 9:35 AM ET

                    By Marc Stein
                    ESPN.com

                    Steve Grayson/WireImage.com
                    No one said it when Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and Brian Grant arrived in L.A. But with 20/20 hindsight? The post-Shaq Lakers would have quite a three-man core had they kept Butler between Lamar and Kobe.
                    1

                    Blockbuster Breakdown



                    The one-year anniversary of Allen Iverson's first game as a Nugget is Saturday. Which naturally made us nostalgic. It also made me think of poor Philadelphians and the NBA maxim that says blockbuster trades never work out well for the team that surrenders the superstar … like when Philly only managed to get Jeff Hornacek, Tim Perry and Andrew Lang for Charles Barkley in 1992.
                    Throw in Wednesday's theater of Kevin Garnett's first big game as a Celtic and the not-going-away curiosity about the futures of Kobe Bryant and Jason Kidd and this seems like an ideal time to take stock(ings) of the league's last five superstar trades. Only trades involving megastars present and past are considered as we rank them 1 to 5 in terms of how the deals worked out for the team giving up the franchise player.
                    For folks out there who are desperate for B-I-G deals, there's good news: All five of these whoppers were consummated in the past 3½ years. Who says no one ever pulls the trigger?
                    Yet for the teams starting anew, there's mostly sad news: One trade was way ahead of the other four in terms of approaching equal value … and even that one didn't work out right for the club selling off its cornerstone.
                    Our breakdown follows, in two parts:

                    1. The Shaq Trade

                    Lakers got: Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Brian Grant, a 2006 first-round pick (used to select Jordan Farmar at No. 26) and a 2007 second-round pick (which was later traded to Dallas)

                    Date: July 14, 2004


                    Shaquille O'Neal's age when dealt to Miami: 32

                    The assessment: The Lakers are habitually hammered for what they were willing to take back for Shaq. The two main justifications for the hammering: 1. L.A. hasn't won a playoff series since Shaq left; and 2. Shaq proceeded to help Miami win the first championship in franchise history.
                    History, however, suggests that the Lakers might have actually fared better trading their superstar than any team previously … and definitely any team since.
                    The Lakers' real crime is what they did after trading O'Neal. They maintain that O'Neal's big contract demands -- more than any encouragement from Kobe Bryant -- led to the abrupt separation following a fourth trip to the Finals in a five-year span. Fine. But then L.A. shipped out Butler and Chucky Atkins to Washington for Kwame Brown after just one season post-Shaq, which happens to be the only season in the past nine in which Phil Jackson didn't coach the Lakers.
                    Oops.


                    I have to put my hand up and admit that I, too, thought it was a worthy gamble at the time, since Brown was a 7-foot No. 1 overall draft pick who was still only 23. You could understand, even after they had just drafted Andrew Bynum one month earlier, why the Lakers thought they had to gamble on more size, still unsure at that stage how they'd cope long-term without O'Neal.


                    But just imagine now if the Lakers had kept Butler in a three-man core with Bryant and Odom, joined by the blossoming Bynum and the role-player support of Luke Walton, Derek Fisher, Farmar, etc. In this era when rugged, mobile, versatile athletes like Butler who can shoot with range and shift between small forward and power forward are more valuable than ever, L.A. would really have something. Specifically? The Lakers would have a fast-developing Bynum and an All-Star, since Butler is the only player acquired in this trade (as well as the next four deals) who has reached that level.


                    Butler's game has evolved so nicely that there are surely some Heat fans out there asking their own what-ifs, fearing that their freefalling team of oldies hasn't stopped nosediving. Since it's not my money, I remain 100 percent sold that the steep price Miami has paid -- and will continue to pay with Shaq due to earn $40 million over the next two seasons and no easy fixes to reload around Dwyane Wade -- was well worth it for that first championship so many other teams and great players are still chasing. But Butler is that good now. He at least makes you think about it.
                    Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here.
                    Dimes Past: December 15-16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

                    2

                    The Not-So-Fab Four

                    Start here to review the other four most recent superstar trades, which are grouped together because they make the Shaq trade look borderline shrewd for the Lakers:

                    2. The KG Trade

                    Timberwolves got: Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff and two future first-round draft picks

                    Date: July 31, 2007

                    Kevin Garnett's age when dealt to Boston: 31

                    The assessment: This should tell you how poorly teams generally do when they trade away a franchise player. A deal skewered here countless times in the five months since it went down (and lots of other places) ranks as the second-best of its kind that we've seen in the past few years. Really.
                    Our original issues with Minnesota's thinking haven't changed. The Wolves waited at least one year too long to finally move Garnett, for starters, and came away with a fistful of maybes when they finally jumped.
                    Yes: Ratliff's contract provides some salary-cap relief for the Wolves. Yes: Getting back the first-round pick sent to Boston in January 2006 in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade is a good thing, because the starting-over Wolves are so bad now. That pick is destined for the upper reaches of the lottery.


                    However …

                    Will cap room coming from Minneapolis seriously entice top free agents in the post-KG era? Does a lottery pick in this June's draft, furthermore, really excite you as much as it would have last June? After taking two seconds to answer those questions, don't forget that Gomes is unlikely to be considered rotation-player material by any good team, while Telfair and Green are just trying to hang on as NBA players. Plus Boston's first-round pick in 2009 will almost certainly be a late first-rounder … and thus nothing to get too giddy about unless you think Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen will somehow miss the playoffs next season. So it's basically Al Jefferson, one lottery pick in a draft of uncertain quality and financial flexibility in exchange for the player synonymous with 'Sota. Only one player, at this point, guaranteed to be a factor for a contender. Enough for you? One rival executive we spoke with had some sympathy for the Wolves, since Jefferson already does look like a future All-Star. Said the GM: "They do get some points for getting a good big back."
                    Yet you'd like to think that they could have scored more for KG than "some points."


                    3. The A.I. Trade

                    76ers got: Andre Miller, Joe Smith and two 2007 first-round picks

                    Date: Dec. 19, 2006

                    Allen Iverson's age when dealt to Denver: 31

                    The assessment: As of Friday morning, Denver was a mere 46-38 since acquiring Iverson and is still not considered an elite team, even with one of the league's three highest payrolls.
                    Yet you still have to ask, one year later: How could the Nuggets not make this trade for what little it cost them in terms of assets?
                    Right. If Nuggets owner Stan Kroenke was willing to absorb the financial cost involved -- and it's a considerable cost given the skepticism that persists about Iverson, Carmelo Anthony and the cast around them ever reaching the NBA elite -- it was and remains a slam-dunk deal.


                    I suppose Sixers general manager Ed Stefanski can still change the complexion of things here if he gets a good piece or two in a trade for Miller between now and February. Or if the Miller deal that's widely expected around the league in the next six weeks simply leads to more salary-cap space for the Sixers, in addition to the financial flexibility Smith's contract created.


                    As it stands, though, Philly only has Miller, rookie Jason Smith, salary-cap relief and a bit of drama relief to show for the KG-type figure synonymous with this franchise … and no discernible franchise player to build around. The leaguewide consensus on both Andres -- Miller and Andre Iguodala -- is that both players should be cast as no more than the third- or fourth-best player on the team. "Iguodala is a No. 3 and Miller is a No. 4 or 5," insists one West exec.


                    The ability to get two first-rounders from the Nuggets was the clincher that prompted Stefanski's predecessor Billy King to take Denver's offer, but those picks only turned out to be No. 21 and the final pick of the first round at No. 30. The Sixers swapped with Miami on draft night to move up one spot to take Smith, then traded No. 30 to Portland (which selected Finland's Petteri Koponen) for a second-rounder (No. 42 overall pick Derrick Byars) who didn't make it out of training camp.


                    King needed to get a lot more out of those picks to save his job, since the trade he made for a franchise player almost two years before dealing Iverson away didn't work out, either, as noted below.

                    5 (tie). The T-Mac Trade

                    Magic got: Steve Francis, Cuttino Mobley and Kelvin Cato

                    Date: June 29, 2004


                    Tracy McGrady's age when dealt to Houston: 25

                    The assessment: With trades like this one and the next one, there really isn't a No. 4. Equal dissing with the Vince Carter trade is the most appropriate treatment.


                    After swiping McGrady from the Raptors at the cost of a single first-round pick in 2000, Orlando didn't get a single future pick from Houston when it shipped T-Mac out along with Juwan Howard, Tyronn Lue and Reece Gaines. And none of the principals obtained by the Magic are still with the team … including the front-office guy with the hockey background (John Weisbrod) who made the deal.


                    Francis was traded to New York within two years for Trevor Ariza and Penny Hardaway's expiring contract. Although that move did help to create the salary-cap space that enabled Orlando to sign Rashard Lewis in the summer of 2007, it's a stretch to make too much of that connection because (a) that certainly wasn't the plan when Francis was acquired and (b) Weisbrod's replacement, Otis Smith, also had to cut ties with Grant Hill and Darko Milicic before there was sufficient payroll room to give Lewis his $118 million.


                    The Magic got tons more out of McGrady's disastrous final season in town than they manufactured by actually moving him. With a 21-61 finish lowlighted by a 19-game losing streak in his farewell season, Orlando won the 2004 lottery and the right to draft Dwight Howard five days before the trade that ended the T-Mac Era. The Magic also snared Jameer Nelson in the draft when Nelson slipped to No. 20.


                    5 (tie). The Vince Trade

                    Raptors got: Alonzo Mourning, Aaron Williams, Eric Williams and two 2005 first-round picks

                    Date: Dec. 17, 2004

                    Vince Carter's age when dealt to New Jersey: 26

                    The assessment: It's probably no coincidence that three of the five GMs who swung these trades no longer work for those teams.
                    One could broaden the examination to investigate (for the umpteenth time) how or why Kevin McHale hasn't made it four out of five to be dismissed, but we'll focus here on Rob Babcock's brief Toronto tenure and how he sealed his dismissal with the Carter nightmare … which ironically led to Minnesota promptly hiring him back as a top aide to McHale.
                    The pressure was already mounting after Babcock's first draft pick -- Rafael Araujo at a way-too-high No. 8 in 2004 -- flopped almost immediately. Carter then began the following season in shutdown mode, playing lifelessly until he convinced the Raptors that they had to take whatever they could get for him.


                    Carter must have been convincing, too, because the Raps actually received less than whatever. Worse yet, Toronto ultimately paid some $10 million in a buyout for Mourning to go away, because Zo was even louder in his Canadian discontent than Carter.
                    The picks? Not much salvation for the Raps there, either. At No. 16 overall in the 2005 draft, they selected Joey Graham. The other pick was later dealt to New York in February 2006 to entice the Knicks to take on Jalen Rose's contract in exchange for Antonio Davis, with Isiah Thomas using it to draft Renaldo Balkman.

                    Even though the Raps' next boss (Bryan Colangelo) and Carter's heir as franchise player (Chris Bosh) managed to turn things around pretty quickly, they can't fully make up for the previous regime's insanity (no V). The Raps would be even further along if the Carter trade was just half-decent.
                    PS: Two trades that were narrowly spared inclusion on his list: New Orleans holding out for no more than Dale Davis, Speedy Claxton and cash for Baron Davis on Feb. 24, 2005; and Chris Webber going from Sacramento to Philadelphia one day earlier (along with Matt Barnes and Michael Bradley) for Kenny Thomas, Corliss Williamson and Brian Skinner. Allan Bristow resigned as the Hornets' front-office chief before the following season and Geoff Petrie is still trying to rebuild Sacramento's kingdom almost three years after Webber was exiled.

                    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      They were not trying to build around the unreliable lunatic coming off a year-long suspension.

                      Even if they were, Ron was gone almost immediately and O'Neal and by the end of Granger's rookie year it was clear that Granger was going to be the man on that team sooner than later. So how about the next 4 seasons?
                      At the time of the draft, they most certainly were. Larry went on the over of SI with him to pitch the story about how he's changed etc.

                      The Pacers were in sell mode on him, not to NBA execs, but to the public trying to rebuild his image. Ron was in their plans, until HE opted out of them by demanding a trade. Prior to that, they were side-by-side.

                      They didn't try to start building around Danny until after his second year in the league, whereas Paul was the building block from day one.

                      Let's actually have the conversation in reality, and not try and re-write history.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                        I think you're forgetting something. Ron's trade demand was his reaction when he found out how hard the team was already trying to trade him - less than a month into the season - in spite of making it seem to the press/ public like they were going to stand behind him.
                        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                        And life itself, rushing over me
                        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          I think you're forgetting something. Ron's trade demand was his reaction when he found out how hard the team was already trying to trade him - less than a month into the season - in spite of making it seem to the press/ public like they were going to stand behind him.
                          I don't think the attempts to trade him were quite as frantic as what Ron wanted people to believe. He was available like any other player, and the fact they were trying to get something good for him if possible was more a compliment to his value (until he forced a quick decision).

                          As I recall everything he reacted to was a press rumor, not something actually set up by the FO, especially since none of them happened and it took a long time to really get a deal after the demand.

                          As always, the debate seems to be going to the extremes of "Teams trading players means no one has to be loyal to anything at any level" and "Players have to be loyal at all costs no matter the circumstances". I think loyalty is becoming the wrong word and that we should be thinking in terms of respect. Teams that stand behind players in public, constantly protect their value, and talk trades behind the scenes and notify the player when it gets anywhere near real - that's respect. Players that go to the team personally rather than in the press, talk about their issues, and seek a good solution - that's respect. Players and teams that understand the fans are where the salaries and attendance come from and treat them accordingly - that's respect.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                            No, it was his reaction to the actual conversations between the Pacers and Kings that was the source of the rumor that the Pacers and Kings were discussing a trade of him for Peja. At the end of November or early December. At that time, there may be have been other players from either or both teams involved, they were the principals. Six weeks later, they still traded him for Peja, straight up.

                            When he had his melt-down meeting with the press (was it Wells? Don't remember. Maybe it was Sekou Smith back then...) he was shooting jumpers and asking how those shots would look if he was wearing a Kings' jersey. That's when the press found out who the Pacers were talking to. That was the press conference where the general public expected him to apologize for his trade demand and he didn't, he broke open the chasm for everyone to see.
                            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                            And life itself, rushing over me
                            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                              I'd have to go back through everything to look at the exact timeline of rumor and what Ron was saying, and to be honest I don't want to rip open the old wounds that badly.

                              I remember finding it ludicrous demanding a trade because you were linked in talks which had either not come to fruition and therefore were just rumors OR when you knew about them because the franchise respected you enough to let you know what was happening. Either way there was a respect issue there and it was the last straw.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: If Granger demanded a trade, how would we react?

                                Or, he'd only attended three of the nine team-imposed post-brawl counseling sessions and management was at wit's end - especially since they'd gone out of their way to "welcome" him back to the team with the SI cover and other forms of fanfare.

                                I certainly don't think they were treating him like a partner in the process of trading him, if that's what you're getting at.

                                He was immature and mentally unstable back then. I'm willing to concede he's more mature now (age will eventually do that to most of us) and therefore less unstable.

                                Management had reached its "last straw" with him even though the SI cover and other fanfare was fresh in the minds of the fans. They were rehabilitating his image to trade him not keep him or build around him. Lots of players before and after Ron have demanded a trade during the season. But very few of them have been told, "Okay, thanks, now please stay away while we work on that for you."

                                Does that sound like they were trying to build around him? His first trade demand was pretty routine as far as trade demands go and the team wasted no time telling him to stay away until he was traded. They were waiting on this chance to not only move him, but for him to make himself the scapegoat so that they wouldn't have to do it for him.

                                Now, clearly, building around JO also turned out to be a mistake. And it would have been a mistake to build around Tinsley, SJax, Peja, and everybody else on the 2005-06 Pacers. Just a disaster... A talented disaster but a disaster.
                                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                                And life itself, rushing over me
                                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X